< 5 December	7 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Peder Jalland[edit]

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

Football player and coach who fails NFOOTY (never played in fully-pro league and never head-coached in one) and GNG (Provided sources are from smalltown local papers.) --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasonably long experience as assistant in a fully professional league, and while it's true that the significant coverage mainly comes from the newspapers of his hometown, I'd call it a mid-sized town if anyone were to think that it's a street lined with a couple of buildings.. For these reasons I created the article Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of discussion, what do you think about my comment above about the documented coverage? That Jalland has been covered significantly in multiple independent sources is not questionable in my eyes. Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He didn't manage in an WP:FPL based league which would make him automatically fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "automatically" fail GNG when you have SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - many people pass GNG but fail NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTY is straightforward in its criteria, and they are not met. Notability could still be established if WP:BASIC is satisfied, but it is not, coverage is only trivial. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 03:19, 14 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 Bohemia Interactive#ARMA series. Lourdes 17:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia Interactive Simulations[edit]

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

Unnotable software company with virtually no real-world significance. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Article was created under and remains prone to COI, while the deletion was contested by the COI editor. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can the 3 VBS AfDs still be combined here to make one? -2pou (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @2pou: I would say no; all should be discussed individually to identify if any is worth keeping. Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with other VSB games. No real-world significance? The games this company makes are used to train militaries across the world. If you took the time to do a google search you'd see that there are hundreds of hits that could be incorporated into the article. Now as for the individual articles for the VBS games, those could probably be redirected to this page instead. From my research VBS3 looks like the only one with maybe enough on it specifically to have its own article. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a few more references and will probably continue to add stuff in the next couple days. The notability of the article should be pretty obvious now. Still, merging the VBS articles into this one would make sense I think. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bluedude588: High usage does usually not indicate notability, regardless of the field it is used in. The additions you made are good but the coverage still seems very lackluster as a whole. There is no significant coverage (more than a few by-liners) as required by GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not impressed with the article, which likely fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG, but looking at Template:Bohemia Interactive if all those games are notable, while NOTINHERITED, maybe they are notable for having developed a number of notable titles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: Common confusion; ((Bohemia Interactive)) actually belongs to Bohemia Interactive, a notable and good-article'd video game developer. Bohemia Interactive Simulations at one point spun off from this video game developer and for some reason retained the same name. Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Lordtobi for clarifying this. In this case I default to my analysis of sources, which does not suggest this spin-off company is notable. At best, soft delete and redirect to parent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bohemia Interactive#ARMA series where the company is discussed in context. This company is a spinoff of Bohemia Interactive. It seems like the coverage of this company is in the context of being a spinoff, so the few sentences about it in the GA article seem of due weight. It is a plausible search term and a redirect is reasonable alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. Helping readers avoid confusion between BI and BIS would be a useful disambiguation that the redirect would facilitate. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark viking, just to clarify, would you agree to have the article deleted and then recreated as a redirect? This would hinder COI editors from rolling back to older revisions easily. Lordtobi (✉) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect would be better than just deletion. But unless there is harmful content in the edit history, I don't see any reason to delete the history, per WP:IGNORINGATD. In particular, "this might cause a maintenance hassle" is not a good reason for deleting history. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Mark viking's reasoning. Topic seems to fail GNG/NCORP but the redirect would be valid. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD. The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be). A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable. Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is. -2pou (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the company page could be redirected per Mark viking without needing to merge with the software itself. -2pou (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoLance[edit]

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

Company lacks notability and should be deleted on those grounds. This was deleted as G11 and then identically recreated about an hour later and I think can be deleted on those grounds as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A non-notable company mostly with passing mentions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 21:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads more like advertising.TH1980 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to trim all the advertising content from the article. Please, have a look at it. Gerlimheers (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely less promotional. Has WP:OVERCITE issues now, however. This doesn't change what appears to be a lack of notability under WP:NCORP. I still am unaware of multiple independent reliable secondary sources discussing the company in significant detail that would establish notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understood why it was deleted under G11. Can you please tell me why you think this lacks notability? Thanks, Gerlimheers (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP describes what kind of sources are necessary for an article on a company. I am suggesting, and so far other editors are agreeing with me, that this company does not have those kinds of sources about them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It won Stevie Awards and there are links from Forbes[1]. Do you think these help to establish notability? Gerlimheers (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTLINKEDIN article is about a non notable organization that is written as though it were a resumé.Celestina007 (talk) 12:20 07 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I see zero independent sources primarily about this company. We are a charity, not a free webhost for businesses. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 12 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 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics dimensions[edit]

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

List of trivial minutia not suited to the general reader. This doesn't help as a contextual navigation hub. This doesn't show notability on the subject. Features of the Marvel Universe already has its own list, so this is also redundant. TTN (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Features of the Marvel Universe per BOZ. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very few of these are individually notable, and I'm not finding any sources that talk about the concept as a group that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN. Many of the blue links here already just redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe. As none of the information here is referenced, only referring to the comic book issue they appeared in as the only attempt at sourcing, there is nothing to merge, and the article title would not serve as a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Dark Knight 2149 22:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:FANCRUFT and a non-notable spinoff of Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places which could also do with some pruning as well. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but I'll argue Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places is already excessive. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avalon (Marvel Comics), Asgard (comics), Limbo (Marvel Comics), Negative Zone have their own articles. Many others are just redirected to the article of their comic book or the main character that is in that dimension. If you merge it anywhere that place will be deleted later on, just as many of these articles were merged here. I see dimensions mentioned in various Google news results [2] but don't know how much detailed coverage any of them get. Lot to search through. The list article has enough valid blue links to justify its existence though. Dream Focus 20:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fun but non-encyclopedic, belongs at https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Dimensions / https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Glossary:Dimension where I'd encourage closing admin to transwiki it (or ping me and I'll do it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, many of these scenarios are other worlds, not dimensions, so this list is wrong. Secondly, the existing format at Features of the Marvel Universe can be edited to include some of the relevant content. Merge if you must. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a laundry list of dimensions. The information offered about these dimensions is trivial at best. JIP | Talk 21:43, 10 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 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tucker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the references currently in the article are an interview (NSFW) and two award rosters. Mr. Tucker's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only one mention in the cast list of a pornographic film[3]. Cheers, gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those porn award wins would not have counted even when PORNBIO was in force. References consist of an interview at a porn vendor's site and two award winners lists at the award ceremonies' sites. Independent searches for RS coverage found nothing. No good references = no supported claim of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-notable pronographic performer. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 12 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. Tone 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Wor[edit]

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

Award-winning singer, but no award is referenced nor appears notable on its own. Mention in passing in few sources, best of which is a one sentence (and a picture) in Washington Post. Is this enough for WP:MUSICBIO? Because it is not enough for the more general WP:NBIO, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far below the threshold established in our guidelines for biographies of musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep reference 1 has significant content in a reliable source including the prior section to the interview, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Almost all of her awards are of the "Richard Tucker Young Artist" type. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep so far. There are substantial profiles in The Atlanta Constitution, ArtsAtl and a short profile plus long interview in DC Metro Theater Arts. Searching for her name plus specific operas, competitions or companies finds more sources than just searching on her name, and there are many more appearances to search on. Reviews included so far describe her "velvety rich mezzo that makes you want to follow her anywhere" (the Washington Post) and "the plush textures and dark, chocolatey timbre of her voice" (ArtsAtl). I will add more sources, information and quotes from reviews as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with RebeccaGreen's sources she goes over the bar. MozeTak (talk) 05:52, 13 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 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wereworms[edit]

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

So this article's a bit of an odd one. Super obscure Tolkien concept, little notability in Middle earth, no notability on the real earth. So the article was created in 2015, and was immediately redirected. The redirect was then undone by the creator of the article (who has been indeffed since 2017), who bypassed AfC to recreate the article and then apparently removed the unreviewed tag himself. See [4]. I don't see this article passing WP:GNG, a reason why the redirect should have been undone, or a clear redirect target since List of Middle-earth animals is no more. Hog Farm (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable cruft and obvious WP:GAMING. Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, this article is merely another piece of rubbish that should have been deleted a long time ago. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Also, lol. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These come from basically one throw away line. The slight development in a recent film is clearly not enough to make them now notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was this is a useful disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education Commission[edit]

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

Glorified disambiguation page with no references and no useful content Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now a straightforward useful and necessary dab page. Some entries may be a bit questionable, but the Bangladesh, India and Pakistan entries show it to be necessary. PamD 11:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason at all for the deletion of the this disambiguation page. It is both useful and necessary, and is in line with WP:DISAMBIG. The nominator mentioned that the page has "no references and no useful content." This is exactly how it is supposed to be per WP:DISAMBIG, as it only a list of items with the same name and disambiguation pages are not supposed to have references. MarkZusab (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But at the time it was nominated it wasn't formatted as a dab page and did have an unsourced para of content. PamD 11:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after helpful edits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a great example of a disambiguation page. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 11:14, 9 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 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantak[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that these creatures have been meaningfully discussed by academics or journalists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. TTN (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Seriously, fancruft at maximum level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 9 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. No bias against redirect and if someone really does think there's something to be merged get in touch and we'll sort out how to handle this in a way that preserves attribution. But absent someone convinced this should be merged, which is not the impression I get, this consensus reads to me a deletable woo. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BEMER therapy[edit]

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

I think this is blatant promotionalism bordering on WP:SPAM. Essentially nothing but a commercial advertisement for a junk medicine claim. jps (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we reading the same article? I haven't investigated notability, but the prose seems fairly neutral, discussing lack of effectiveness and "claimed" effects. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 00:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company is a MLM outfit and the devices (which the MLM particpants sell) are apparently a scam based on fake science. All this apparently isn't covered in RS, but in odd corners of the web which it would be hard to use, even given WP:PARITY. So it's woo, but is it notable woo? I'll see if I can dig anything usable out ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. It seems there are two topics here; BEMER therapy, which has some studies listed on PubMed, and the BEMER group, which I agree looks like an MLM scam operation. I suppose the therapy is possibly notable, but I'll defer to editors with more experience in fringe medical woo to determine that. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 12:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that BEMER therapy and the BEMER groups can be meaningfully disentangled. You get one, you get the other. As it is, however, essentially no sources are out there which carefully explore this. In other words, the entire thing is just a bit too obscure for a marginal health claim to be included in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all here: the lone pioneer, the "institute", the fake theory, the scam. Unfortunately I can't find any material sufficiently RS for Wikipedia's purposes, which is a shame as it's classic and it would be good if Wikipedia carried some accurate knowledge about it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Alexbrn. When people see it pop up in their communities [5], it would be nice if they had an accurate encyclopedia entry about it to refer to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly there is no worthy RS for this fascinating little altmed backwater. Alexbrn (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge maybe to Radionics? Otherwise delete: this is bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 10:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
melurge with Cranial electrotherapy stimulation or Low-level laser therapy or Scrambler therapy following a brief search of my watchlist. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radionics#EMT_devices where a sentence about BEMER (Bio-Electro-Magnetic-Energy-Regulation) device/therapy (yes there is a BEMER device) will fit nicely into the list of other dubious electromagnetic therapy devices. As for the MLM, I don't see evidence it's notable enough for inclusion anywhere on WP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG no significant, reliable, independent coverage. I'd say merge to Radionics#EMT devices and an entry there alongside other like pseudo-scientific devices will do just fine, the problem is aside from the name everything else would have to be rewritten to properly condense and so it would essentially be a do over anyway. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 03:12, 14 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 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Informatics[edit]

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

No such thing. A catchy term for a nonnotable "a one-man project" Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia does not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG no "Significant coverage", the subject of the Humane Informatics article takes some real digging deep into search results to find almost all of which reference something else. The existing references only mention it in conjunction with a pair of products released nearly a decade ago. Coverage must be WP:SUSTAINED, and the subject's own website hasn't been updated in more than 7 years. [6] 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:45, 10 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 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoColor[edit]

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

I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would support the notability of this duo. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:MUSIC, lack of independent RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a non-notable collaboration. Sjö (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly too soon for an article as they just formed the side project and have not yet generated any significant coverage. All that can be found are the usual self-promotion and social media efforts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 10 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erathis[edit]

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

D&D deity. No third-party sources cited and none found with a quick search. No reason to believe that the topic is notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nn. Only in-universe sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only primary sources are being used in the article, and searching brings up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. A redirect to the deity list can be done after in deemed needed, but none of the information here really needs to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. TTN (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Gods (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an obscure group that contains Marvel's versions of various religious and fictional pantheons. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of deities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of deities in Marvel Comics. Article fails WP:GNG, the two non-primary sources are both blogs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of deities in Marvel Comics per BOZ. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Piotrus. Redirecting to List of deities in Marvel Comics would be okay, nothing of value to merge.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Sahil Thakral[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as Thakral was only a candidate that was not elected. He has not held any other public offices. Sources do not seem reliable and more are needed for additional verification. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 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 political office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make his candidacy somehow a special case of greater notability than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No demonstrated notability. Running for election is not, in itself, notable, as previously explained. -- Begoon 01:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the the subject does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOL. According to the article, subject is state president of "speaks party". But this is a non notable party (according to wikipedia's guidelines), and again even with that, subject fails WP:NPOL. As the subject doesnt have significant coverage, he fails general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, almost always delete pages about unsuccessful candidates, and I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anukunnadi Okkati Ayyandhi Okati[edit]

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

No claim of notability in article, no WP:SIGCOV found. Not sure if this film is released yet. My understanding is that CSD A7 isn't applied to films, so I'm listing here. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete improperly sourced, no evidence of notability. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance, improperly sourced, and virtually no content. Puddleglum ^2.0 16:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search found nothing, no evidence of significance, fail WP:GNG-Nahal^(T) 09:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Google search found nothing and the article is empty, fail WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALID and WP:GNG. Not all films get their own article. There's no evidence this is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewater Energy Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , but for different reasons. I actually don't see any advertising here, what I see is lack of indication of importance. (also required with GNG). Please ping me in replies, Puddleglum ^2.0 16:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - energy and Utility companies are usually notable, but that rule doesn't apply to suppliers or other companies that do business with them. There's no evidence this is more than a run of the mill company that supplies something (still not sure what it does). We are a charity, not a free web-host for profit. Coverage about the company is routine. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 9 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. The "keep" does not address the sourcing issue. Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savedroid[edit]

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

Promotional article with only a single source other than the organisation's own website, and that source is of dubious reliability. My own search turns up only routine reporting on currency prices, or sources based on press releases. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP Hug^syrup 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savedroid is very infamous in Germany. They made an ICO about 17 MIO EUR and after the fake-exit-scam they become very infamous even globally. Now there are several trials because of fraudulent action. Sure this article is promotional because all shaddy points are missing. But savedroid is part of the German crypto history and the history of die ICO bubble 2017. Better to increase this article with some facts. Someone want to help? German language skills would be helpful.

keep AxelHellinger (talk) 10:12, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freebirds World Burrito[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR It's a fast food chain. I can't tell if it's actually notable for al lthe COI promotional editing going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NCORP, and the PAID promo is just an add-on reason. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NCORP fail, as mentioned. This is just run of the mill coverage of a chain. Noting particularly notable about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:50, 7 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KRL Model College Kahuta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. I am willing to re-consider if you can convince me that science fair awards matter. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misali Chenab Cadet High School[edit]

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

Private school. No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Private, military school. Unknown credentials for educators, unknown age of school. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Public School[edit]

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

No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This so-called "Public School" is actually a private school up to 10th grade. The only media notice I can find is for a 2014 hand grenade attack that killed one of the school's teachers. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing my standards for secondary schools. I am willing to re-consider if you can convince me that an attack (bombing) on the school counts for notability. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kin's International Public High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Despite the name, this is a private school of unknown size and rigor. Only accredited for 17 years. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last discussion closed on a procedural keep, one of the most overused tactics of inclusionists, which tends to keep Wikipedia cluttered with unneeded articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 11 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 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International Public School and College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - private, military-style school, but fairly large (1,000 pupils) for its type. Meets some of my standards for secondary schools. I am willing to re-consider if you can find reliable sources about its faculty and rigor. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government Higher Secondary School No. 1 (Peshawar Saddar)[edit]

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

Not verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. For some information, see this source. Störm (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The school exists, but its only real distinction appears to be that it's the first in the country to have CCTV cameras installed in the classrooms.[7] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools - no diplomas are issued for this middle school. I am willing to re-consider if you can convince me that a very large middle school should be notable per se. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agahi Community Schools[edit]

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

Nothing substantial in sources. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Past discussions have decided that primary schools are almost never notable. I see nothing special here about this set of private schools. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 9 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 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. This seems to be a small private school. Claims of top 10th are unclear. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 9 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 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Syed Garden Public School & College, Battagram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. This is another private school that claims to be "top 10th" without any facts, much less independent references. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 9 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 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-E-Azam Public School and College Paniola Poonch A.K[edit]

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

Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Even if kept for some reason, this page about a private school is so poorly written ("respectable person", "belongs to" a city) that an entire re-write is needed. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 9 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. Some reservation about the appropriateness of a redirect offered, no consensus or evidence suggested for notability, leading to this delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball (comics)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Spider-Man enemies. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies. Dark Knight 2149 22:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This currently has only one secondary source, and it's all of three sentences long. That can't support an article of this length. Since the source mentions this character in the context of a list of Spider-Man's other enemies, doing the same by redirecting to List of Spider-Man enemies (no merge necessary; she's already there) would normally be appropriate; but disambiguated titles make for poor redirects, so I can't support that either. So I guess I'm leaning delete, with a low bar against recreation as long as there's more secondary sources, and retarget the entry in Screwball (disambiguation) to List of Spider-Man enemies instead of removing it. —Cryptic 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cryptic's analysis is spot on. The dab makes it a problematic redirect, but if others feel redirecting is the way to go, I'd support that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:33, 14 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 Winter Guard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (comics)[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Winter Guard. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 9 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piercer (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search (one appearance in possibly reliable listicle, but that's not enough alone. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very minor fictional creature. The current article contains no secondary sources, and the entry in the one top ten humor article found by the nom is certainly not enough coverage in secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG. There is no information here that would need to be merged to the proposed list, as the information here is already present on that list or completely non-sourced, and its not a particularly useful search term to use as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia worthy entry. Minor character in D&D Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:06, 11 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin bug (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only in-universe sources. Geschichte (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of real-life significance. Not a very active user (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only primary sources are being used here, and the only reliable sources found upon searches is on the real world insects known as assassin bugs. Changing the hatnote on that page to direct to the monster list, if actually deemed necessary, would be a much better way to direct what few people would be looking specifically for the fictional version of the creatures than keeping this as a redirect, which would be a lot less common of a search term. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 9 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. A redirect to USC Thornton School of Music seems plausible at first glace, but the scholarship isn't mentioned in that article, so a redirect wouldn't make sense. If somebody wants to create the redirect on their own, that's fine, but I'm not going to make it part of the consensus close. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn and Adolph Koldofsky Memorial Scholarship[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no references to it is its own right--the only refs i could find in Google were links to announcement of concerts by people who have received the scholarship. I could not find that any of the recipients in those announcements are notable in our sense --which is a little odd since the scholarship has been awarded annually since 1951.

There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything it belongs at USC Thornton School of Music; department-specific awards are rarely notable on their own and I see nothing showing independent notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as redirects are cheap. BD2412 T 04:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The assertion above that "There are no references to it is its own right--the only refs i could find in Google were links to announcement of concerts by people who have received the scholarship." is I think unfair, possibly because the scholarship has been referenced under various names over its long history, including the "Gwendolyn and Adolph Koldofsky Memorial Scholarship", "Gwendolyn and Adolph Koldofsky Memorial Endowed Scholarship", "Gwendolyn Koldofsky Memorial Scholarship", "Koldofsky Graduate Fellowship in Accompanying", and "Koldofsky Memorial Music Scholarship". I find quite a few references to recipients (in addition to the references to benefit concerts), including:

So-Mang Jeagal

  https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/

Dongeui Park

  https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/

Dr. HyeJung Shin

  https://music.usc.edu/files/2016/12/FAL16_10-21_ConcertChamber.pdf#page=14
  https://aimsgraz.com/faculty/hye-jung-shin/
  https://www.cui.edu/arts/music/faculty#hyejung-shin

ChoEun-Lee

  https://collaborativepiano.music.unt.edu/faculty/choeun-lee
  https://www.leeuniversity.edu/academics/music/faculty/cho-eun-lee.aspx
  https://www.leeuniversity.edu/NewsItem.aspx?id=16076

Dr. Kayla Chon

  https://www.music.txstate.edu/piano/Faculty/Chon.html
  https://www.southwestern.edu/live/events/3046-guest-and-faculty-recital-jack-unzicker-bass-kayla

Lisa Edwards

  https://performancesalacarte.org/artist/lisa-edwards/

Janet Hui-Chuan Kao

  http://music.fullcoll.edu/conn_faculty_detail.php?staffid=231

John Ballerino

  https://music.ucsb.edu/people/john-ballerino
  http://www.pv-vcmtac.org/find-a-teacher#59
  https://takelessons.com/profile/john-b125

David Hapner

  https://people.wright.edu/david.hapner

Dr. Lorna Eder

  https://fairbankssymphony.org/choral-director/

Natalie Dalschaert

  https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert/
  https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert-brice-martin-flute-and-natalie-dalschaert-piano/

Karenn Chutjian Presti

  https://schoolofmusic.ucla.edu/people/karenn-presti/

Alex Lansburgh

  https://www.hawaiiperformingartsfestival.org/fellows/alex-lansburgh/

KyungJu Byun

  http://www.amacviolins.com/ad/trio1.htm

Soo-Yeon Park

  https://www.csub.edu/music/faculty_staff/park/index.html

The assertion above that "There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability." is also I think unfair. Wikipedia defines "Name dropping" as: "Name-dropping (or name-checking) is the practice of naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation,[1] story,[2] song, online identity,[3] or other communication. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively,[1] and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics.[4] When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy.[5]" But the notable names mentioned in the Koldofsky Scholarship article aren't simply gratuitous conversational mentions for the purpose of impressing others. Instead they are legitimate references from reliable sources directly relevant to the scope of an encyclopedic article.

I don't see any advantage in merging this article with either USC Thornton School of Music or Gwendolyn Koldofsky, and I don't see any advantage in deleting the article completely, since people who come across references to this topic would be disappointed not to find a Wikipedia article on it.

I am the main author of the article. Musicman103 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was claimed above that "department-specific awards are rarely notable on their own and I see nothing showing independent notability." But we do have department-specific award articles, such as John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford, and Tiger Athletic Foundation, and university-specific graduate-level awards such as Knight-Hennessy Scholars and the awards listed under "See Also" in that article. The notability of these awards seems to derive mainly from the notability of their benefactors and/or alumni. Musicman103 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if possible. This is an award for a specific department, for which no independent coverage can be found. Yes, there are other similar awards, but that doesn't follow that this award is notable. This seems to be more in the line of the Richard Tucker Music Foundation young artist awards (e.g. Sarah Tucker Awards for students). I would like a ping if you find a suitable target to merge it into. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the latter part of the above comment that says: "This is an award for a specific department, for which no independent coverage can be found." I consider the following ten references in the article to be independent coverage: #1: The Canadian Encyclopedia; #4: lottelehmannleague.org; #5: geni.com; #6: cabbagetownpeople.ca; #7: latimes.com; #9: latimes.com; #10: latimes.com; #18: cdnc.ucr.edu; #21: latimes; #28: the book "Marilyn Horne: The Song Continues". I would also consider these independent references to be substantial in explaining the origin of the scholarship fund, when and where it was created, and in honor of whom, and its later renaming, how it was funded with annual benefit concerts, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman103 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 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. Per guidelines and practice, the only thing that matters in notability discussions is that there are good sources that can be the basis for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight. Being the first gay lead character in UK comics is probably important, and as such warrants (sourced) mention in appropriate articles e.g. about British comics, but under our guidelines it has nothing to do with whether he should be the subject of a dedicated article. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Waugh[edit]

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

Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Is the titular character of several graphic novels (see Amazon search), so there is a reasonable prospect of an encyclopedic article being written from a real-world perspective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknack009 (talk • contribs) 17:03, November 28, 2019 (UTC)
- If said graphic novels are notable (have reviews, awards) we could redirect this there if you or anyone else would stub such an article. But I don't see said reviews/awards myself. Being a main characters in several minor comic books does not seem to meet WP:GNG. One could argue that therefore any character who has a book (movie, etc.) named after them is notable. I don't think that is a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but Rebellion/2000AD is a significant comics publisher. I think a character who has his own series from a significant publisher has at least the potential for notability and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Isn’t this a part of the Waugh universe? If so the reasonably developed content should be considered for merge WP:Before deletion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this character. Also, we should avoid giving articles to every single character who has a few obscure graphic novels devoted to them. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first homosexual lead character in a UK comic is likely to be notable independently of the stories themselves. Richard75 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. - A source.[reply]
- Good point but it not enough to say WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, you need to find them. And blogs are sadly not enough, per WP:RS. Did anyone write about this in a proper media like newspaper, magazine or an academic work? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - LGBT Themes in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Richard75 (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every lead character is notable. Wikipedia has too many fancruft articles without us embracing that obsurdity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Not a shred of analysis. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis can always be added. Notability is not determined by existing content, but by whether sources exist for such content to be added. Richard75 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the reasoning above, being the first character of his kind from a notable publisher, and evidence sources do exist. It may take work but it seems apparent that a good article is possible despite all the material removed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd - Jay (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion about Richard75's sources, in particular
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a single source seems to be of any importance, but that's not enough for an article. It should probably be added somewhere relevant though. TTN (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. His being the first openly gay lead character in a UK comic does indeed make him bit notable, but it doesn't mean he needs a stand-alone article, especially since there are barely any sources that discuss this fact. A mention in a character list is exactly the right kind of middle-ground. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another bit of fancruft consisting virtually of all plot and publication history. Fails WP:GNG. Redirecting to List of minor characters in Judge Dredd wouldn't be appropriate, since they aren't mentioned there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not mentioned there because they're covered here. Richard75 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of several graphic novels and significant as the first gay character in British comics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review comparing Devlin with other gay comic characters (some way down; search for "first openly gay"). Richard75 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:37, 11 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 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrych[edit]

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

In my opinion, this article meets the WP:A7 criterion for speedy deletion. If Mr Patrych has continued to be a notable but not mainstream classical music producer into the age when biographic information went online, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be at least some coverage in reliable sources to support this. See Wikipedia:Notability (music), and in particular the Others section. The (((Find sources AFD|Joseph Patrych))) will confirm that this is not the case. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I tagged this as A7 initially. I was not able to find any in-depth independent sources about Patrych when I searched. Am happy to strike if any are found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are too thin on the ground, which is odd, given how long the subject has been active.TH1980 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete pages about music engineers and producers, who are run off the mill, and rarely can be documented to actually contribute creatively to the finished recording. Ping me if you find something specific and significant. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not pass WP:GNG Just passing mentions. Wm335td (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AppViewX[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Apparent promotional article created by SPA, with a lot of maintenance by other SPAs. PROD declined by a new SPA. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, press releases and the sort of churnalism already in the article. This doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP at all. David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The page previously had references from some PR agencies, which we acknowledge was in violation of your policies, and have since removed them.

All the information that the page contains now is genuine and have no promotional/monetary value attached to them whatsoever.

We request you to reconsider the decision, and if we're still found lacking in notability that merits the page's deletion, we request you to please let us know what we can do it avoid it.

Nishevitha (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly speaking, there is little and less a subject can do to influence whether they're notable per Wikipedia's definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we acknowledge" and "we request". Is this account shared by more than one person? Also, do you have a connection with AppViewX? --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm the sole operator of my account. And I work in AppViewX, hence the plurality.Nishevitha (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am currently of two minds on this. I made a couple of edits as I tried to figure out whether the underlying topic was or wasn't notable.
Nominator David Gerard, did you mean to imply the article was the work of a cloud of SPAs, colluding together? That is not what I saw when I looked at the article's history? What I saw were contributors who disagreed with one another, working to correct what they saw as imperfect wroding by other contributors. So - not colluding. Were they SPAs? I didn't check.
On the other hand, after looking at the sources, I'd say the article is currently quite inaccurate. The references I looked at said AppViewX was spun off in 2016, while our article said it was founded in 2009. That was definitely a problem, but not one for which deletion was the appropriate solution, if the underlying topic was notable.
So, is the topic of AppViewX notable? WP:NCORP says it would have to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Well, in addition to those press releases, I think there has been coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. $30 million dollars of venture capital funding is not chicken feed, and that was published in independent secondary sources.
In my opinion the biggest weakness of both the wikipedia article and much of the RS coverage is that they are really vague about the firm's actual products.
Okay, I spent enough time to form an idea of what their product is.
They sell software that provides developers with a visual programming interface. They claim this visual interface will enable developers who aren't professional software developers to develop visual applications of their own, without having to learn how to program.
I was a software guy, a lifetime ago, and I have a strong prejudice against those selling software that makes this kind of undeliverable promise.
But my strong prejudice is irrelevant, if RS talk about this topic. And, no offense, David Gerard, to whatever extent your feelings about this kind of promise, this kind of software, lay behind your nomination, it too should be irrelevant here.
If third party venture capitalists put down $30 million bucks, and third party IT journals wrote about it, our personal prejudices should count for nothing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the extremely skimpy sourcing - this has never been a well-sourced article - and did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing but press releases and occasional press release reprints, and that made it seem really not noteworthy. I noted the editing history as well. WP:NCORP requires more than funding rounds and churnalism - it requires actual WP:ORGIND content. Where are you seeing this significant non-press-release coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite what Geo Swan says, funding news is almost always going to be routine coverage that does little for notability at best, and an outright press release at worst, regardless of the amount of funding or the circumstances (exceptions would include if there was a suspicion the funding was tied to a financial crime somehow, e.g. money laundering). The sources on the page thus far do not show notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the sock-puppetry and COI involved in this article, the subject simply fails WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator, and Jéské Couriano (A little blue Bori). Subject fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. To pass GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources is required, not press releases. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devika.rajagopal. This article has COI editors right from the start. Barely edited by non COI editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:35, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wabwose[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Only played at a U19 level, and while selected to play in the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Four tournament, he did not play in a match. User has created dozens of non-notable articles during their time on WP (see their talkpage). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricketeer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I assume there are no other bluelinked names in those lists that fail CRIN. I note that Chare Smith is not linked. Note that CSD G4 does not apply if/when the individual passes CRIN. Or whatever criteria people make up these days. Bobo . 12:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only played in junior level matches. Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 07:22, 13 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition of the Netherlands[edit]

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

The Spanish Inquisition was not active in The Netherlands because The Netherlands were not technically part of the Spanish Crown and it could never hold jurisdiction there. There was an inquisition but it was not the malevolent secretive organization it is portrayed as here. Executions were more likely to be conducted by political authorities and not the church. Most of this article is based on 16th century rumors, Protestant propaganda, and 19th century historiography. The Talk page contains a list of references to which I suspect the author did not have access to because they often dispel the 'myth' or 'legend' of the Spanish Inquisition in The Netherlands as it is portrayed here. Oda86 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article by Belgian historian Werner Thomas discusses this myth of the Spanish Insuisition in the Netherlands.^[1] Oda86 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Oda86 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ W. Thomas, 1990. De mythe van de Spaanse inquisitie in de Nederlanden van de zestiende eeuw. BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review, 105(3), pp.325–353.

Keep. If the issue is neutrality, that is not a matter for AfD. If the argument is that Inquisition did not exist in the Netherlands, that is contradicted by reliable sources. See, for example, this book, recently published (2014) by a reputable publishing house (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). In fact, whether by actual practices or fear of its establishment, it is an important part of Dutch history as a cause of the Dutch Revolt. St Anselm (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is longer than the two paragraphs in the book you referenced. Only one sentence from the Wikipedia article corresponds to what is written in those two paragraphs. That one sentence (about Francis Van der Hulst) seems to be the only factual part of the entire article. If the article is to be kept it would have to be rewritten entirely. If the importance of the rumors about the Spanish Inquisition merit being on Wikipedia, it should either be as part of the Black legend (Spain) or as part of the article on the Dutch Revolt. Oda86 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly as Inquisition in the Netherlands. I only had to take off my shelf J.I. Israel, Dutch Republic: its rise greatness and fall (Oxford University Press, 1995) and look at the index to find it had several passages in the subject. This told me (pp.99-101) that Pieter Titelmans was Inquisitor of the County of Flanders, processing 494 heresy cases, leading to 105 executions. The inquisition seems to have existed 1521-66, initially under Francis van der Hulst aimed at rooting out Protestantism. No doubt there were differences from that in Spain; and perhaps its Spanish nature needs toning down, but that is a matter of editing not a question of whether the article should exist. Whether executions were conducted by the church or the state matters little: they were the result of trials instigated by inquisitors. I do not know enough about the history of the Southern Netherlands after the Dutch Revolt to know how Catholicism was reestablished as the state religion there, with Protestants either migrating to the United Provinces or converting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most executions were not the result of trials instigated by inquisitors but by the Council of Troubles which was a special tribunal instituted by the governor-general. They tried heresy as a case of treason and didn't operate as part of the Catholic Church. A 2009 also study states that it was the political authorities that acted against protestants.^[1] Oda86 (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was an inquisition in the Netherlands, but it was imperial–papal and not the Spanish Inquisition. I have edited the article to make this clear. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit does make it look like the beginnings of an actually factual article. It could be worth salvaging if a lot of it were removed. In particular anything based on The Rise of the Dutch Republic by John Lothrop Motley. Even his 19th century contemporaries were very critical of this work ("tendency to make up "facts" if they made for a good story"; "his views are generally too obsolete"; "bias in favor of Protestants and against Catholics"). It had set the tone of the entire article before the edit which might have made me more antipathical to the article as a whole.Oda86 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cook, Bernard (2002). Belgium: A History also doesn't seem to go over well in academic circles in the Low Countries. One review concluded: "il faut cependant déplorer son manque réel de consistance et l’absence d’une vraie perspective d’information scientifique." (however, we must deplore its real lack of consistency and the absence of a real perspective of scientific information).^[2] Maybe part of the issue is that the Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands hasn't found it's way beyond Dutch and Belgian historiography. Most of what I find to make my point is written in Dutch or French whereas arguments from the other side tend to come from English or American writers. I also learned about the Spanish Inquisition in the Netherlands in high school but studying history at university, this was one of the things my professors took the time to debunk. I suppose nobody wants the truth to stand in the way of a good story Oda86 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The kinds of content problems the OP describes are not appropriately solved through deletion, although I won't be surprised if this article becomes more about dispelling myths or historiography in time. I myself made an edit to this article with the edit summary: "Add quotation which questions this whole article". The quote included "there never was any scheme to establish a Holy Office of the sort known in Castile in the Netherlands". However, I also did a thorough search for sources and found a number, which I added to the further reading section. They seem to indicate notability, and I would be glad to see someone step forward to integrate them into the article. I'm afraid I just haven't gotten around to it. @Oda86: would you be up for the task? Daask (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with there being an article on "Religious persecution in The Netherlands" but that would widen the scope even further. It would also complicate matters even further because the Dutch Revolt was basically a civil war where one town might have seen the persecution of Catholics whereas a few towns over Protestants were subjected to the same. My main issue is with the term 'inquisition' because The term 'Inquisition' was already leading to confusion in the sixteenth century. [...] Since then, 'the Inquisition' has also been used in historiography as a container term and has obfuscated historical debates.^[3] Most of your sources are about rumors and propaganda about the inquisition (even if they do use the word "inquisition" in their title). Muchembled is actually a review of the book "Modern Inquisition trials in the southern Netherlands" in which he extensively criticizes the misuse of that term in the title. Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands mentions a forged "decree of the Spanish Inquisition signed by the King of Spain in 1568 declared most Dutch lives and property forfeit" that was not discovered to be a forgery until the 20th century (I would have to consult the source to know the actual year though). This would invalidate any source you mention published in the 19th and early 20th century. The main issue is that even historians constantly seem to correct each other on the proper use of the term as it applies to the Netherlands. Rewriting the page under its current title would leave nothing more than a stub. Rewriting it as "Religious persecution in The Netherlands" seems to broad and narrowing it down might render it too niche. If we were to turn it into "Myths about the Inquisition of the Netherlands" it would be better suited under Black legend (Spain) or Historical revision of the Inquisition - The Revolt of the Netherlands. The latter also still requires a lot of revising. I quoted a source below that, for me, indicates that as far as there was an inquisition in the Netherlands not enough information about it remains to build a notable article. All the rest just comes from historical misunderstandings and misuse of the term.

@Daask: So, in summary: Integrating the sources you added might not be enough. Rewriting the article almost entirely, with exception of the contributions made in the last few days, might be enough. It would basically be a short section on how there wasn't really an institutionalized Inquisition in the Netherlands, only a handful of people with the title of inquisitor over a short time (see below). Laying out how persecution of Protestants was a civic matter, not one performed by the Church. And then a more sizeable sections about myths, rumors and propaganda about the Spanish Inquisition and the resulting misinterpretation by historians of the role the Inquisition played in religious persecutions in The Netherlands, which has been corrected in recent decades. Would that be a notable?

Keep. This inquisition existed, is notable. Whether it was an extension of the Spanish inquisition is a separate question. (does the source given support the term "protestant propaganda"?. Hydromania (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re Propaganda: The term is used by historians on the Dutch revolt to describe the "paper war" waged at the time via pamphlets.^[4]^[5]^[6]

re the term inquisition: Using that term is problematic. There was a sort of papal inquisition that dealt with heresy from 1525 to 1540. This was in no way or form an extension of the Spanish Inquisition nor was it ever a stable organisation^[7]. After that it became the jurisdiction of the political authorities but their actions are still referred to in the article as those of an "inquisition". It isn't. Oda86 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article contends that the outreach of the Inquisition in the Low Countries should not be exaggerated as Goosens has done by equating it with other early modern centralised Inquisitions. Unlike Spain, Portugal or Italy, the Inquisition in the Low Countries never turned into a stable organisation which survived for centuries: it was certainly buried by 1589, if not already by 1576-7. In fact, we argue that the Inquisition in the Low Countries should primarily be regarded as an 'office' bestowed upon individuals rather than as a proper institution. It never acquired a building or created separate archives. In the Low Countries, the Inquisition never formed a tribunal, yet individual inquisitors were called upon as specialised judges for offending clerics, or for judicial procedures de fide conducted by laymen. Inquisitors - and there were not so many of them in total - were often appointed ad hoc, after the death of the previous holder of the function. As importantly, the inquisitorial function was continuously reassessed during the sixteenth century, while never attaining a fixed equilibrium. Its functions were thus subject to changing dynamics: first, the inquisitors served as a much-needed check-and-balance on the civil courts and episcopal and papal inquisitors. Then they became an intelligence service for civil courts which had received broadened competence regarding heretics. Finally, after the episcopal reform in 1559, even inquisitors themselves no longer insisted on the necessity of their function. Hence, the inquisitorial office went through different phases of cooperation and antagonism with both the secular and the ecclesiastical officials with whom it shared responsibility for the repression of heterodoxy.^[8] Oda86 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gielis, G., 2009. Verdoelde schaepkens, bytende wolven: inquisitie in de Lage Landen, Leuven: Davidsfonds, p. 343.
^ Annaert, P., 2007. Belgium. A history. Revue D Histoire Ecclesiastique, 102(1), pp.184–185.
^ GIELIS, G., & SOEN, V. (2015). The inquisitorial office in the sixteenth-century habsburg low countries: A dynamic perspective. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 66(1), 47-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022046914001286
^ Dissident Propaganda and Political Organisation at the Outbreak of the Revolt of the Netherlands Duke, Alastair C.. (2009) - In: Duke, Dissident identities S. 202-229
^ van Stipriaan, R. (2007). Words at War: The Early Years of William of Orange's Propaganda, Journal of Early Modern History, 11(4-5), 331-349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157006507782263362
^ Peters, Edward (1988). "The Invention of the Inquisition". Inquisition. New York London: Free Press Collier Macmillan. ISBN 9780029249802.
^ GIELIS, G., & SOEN, V. (2015). The inquisitorial office in the sixteenth-century habsburg low countries: A dynamic perspective. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 66(1), 47-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022046914001286
^ GIELIS, G., & SOEN, V. (2015). The inquisitorial office in the sixteenth-century habsburg low countries: A dynamic perspective. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 66(1), 47-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022046914001286

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 08:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Cricket World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not adhere to WP:CRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found on web on 2027 Cricket World Cup yet. It is 7 years to go. WP:CRYSTAL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing remotely close to say this will be taking place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL / TOO SOON. Spike 'em (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I suppose the tournament will happen but there's no point starting an article until we see some definite news about it. This isn't like the 2026 FIFA World Cup for which planning and organisation are advanced. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outrageous spam. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOEARLY. The details for the tournament are not verified yet. Abishe (talk) 07:25, 13 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 08:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Leone (scientist)[edit]

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

I believe that this page doesn't satisfy the specific notability requirements noted at WP:ACADEMIC, nor does it pass the rule-of-thumb "Average Professor Test" described on the same page, and should thus be deleted, along with the redirect on Giovanni Leone and articles and redirects on Wikipedia in other languages.

While I don't believe this should be a controversial deletion, it appears possible that this page was created by its subject or an associate; hence, I would appreciate some other eyeballs to counteract any bias on my part or the part of the contributing editors to this page. Wikkist (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikkist (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The description of the director position is here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that both the page and the deletion proposal (!) are by SPAs. The subject doesn't seem to have a GS profile, and searching for him is complicated by other Giovanni Leones. The article looks like an autobiography. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This person doesn't applied to the director position posted at AAS.

This announcement was made twice and since both times there wasn't candidates, it was appointment as director until the end of 2019. The page itself provide a large number of details that are not relevant to a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.4.48 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm concerned about the circumstances of the proposal, but I still think it's WP:TOOSOON for this person who finished his PhD education in 2016. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:00, 8 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 08:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf[edit]

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

List was originally created in 2012; citations are mostly for 2009 or 2010; the original list was subsequently headed 2013, without updating the data; the table was then copied into a second table headed 2015–2017, but some of the data was just copied (I have today blanked those entries), and almost all of it is uncited; most of the figures in the older table fail verification. If this is a notable topic, it would be better to start from scratch (WP:TNT). – Fayenatic London 14:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the category for the corresponding geographical zone is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 24#Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf. – Fayenatic London 14:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But possibly TNT or rename/reorganize. Looking at Template:Aviation statistics there are a number of regions for airport lists so we can avoid having lists for individual countries. Although a redirect to List of the busiest airports in Asia would work, it only goes to #4 here. I would suggest reworking it as List of busiest airports in Southwest Asia or List of busiest airports in the Middle East though. Reywas92^Talk 06:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see it as a notable region for such list with only 10 airports, the article List of the busiest airports in Asia is up-to-date and covers the region. UA3 (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason to have a list of airports specifically for this region. If kept, rename to Arab Peninsula as the more commonly used region. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a non-notable cross categorisation. I'd expect a list by country or by continent, but not one for a group of just a few countries. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 9 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 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Street Pictures[edit]

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

Non-notable film production company. Speedy was declined because they are supposedly "responsible" for several blue-linked films. In reality, per the credits of those films on IMDB, they are merely one of several production companies involved in making said films (ie, they are not a primary film production company like MGM or Miramax that arranges for films to be made, but a company you contract to help with shooting your film).

I found no results on a Google search for news or books. Newspapers.com had some trivial mentions in Boston papers as well as one fluff piece in the North Adams Transcript about how nice it was that the company was shooting in their little town. There are no sources outside of Massachussets, so it fails WP:AUD even if that fluff piece + trivial mentions were enough to squeak it over WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP controls here. In searches, independent reliable secondary sources give only passing coverage to the topic, more detail would be needed for this meet the criteria. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tcho-Tcho[edit]

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

Fictional race that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries. Deprodded by anon with no rationale, so we again need to discuss this fancruft here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 6 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} 07:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are a minor part of the Mythos that has not been meaningfully discussed by academic or journalists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'm not opposed to a merge if a good target can be identified. A few hits on Google Scholar, but nothing substantial. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Rally (France)[edit]

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

I found what I believe to be a migrated link for the official website here, but other than that, I can't find any coverage I'd call significant. Most other mentions in French news seem to be referring to parties in other countries, like Cyprus hewhoam areismyself 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. hewhoam areismyself 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. hewhoam areismyself 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor poltical organisation and no independent sources are found on the article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 8 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 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen L. Rothenberg[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney (not to be confused with Alan Rothenberg), no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be notable within the tri state aria and certainly with evangelical Christians and the Jewish community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt123yv (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable to a small group of people is not what notability actually is. Praxidicae (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject has been featured in multiple published secondary sources, which in my view just barely passes WP:BASIC. The sources that exist focus on the abundance of close family in his law firm and the subject's communal accomplishments, so it is certainly not a WP:MILL subject, and I see no indication of WP:SPIP. StonyBrook (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StonyBrook Which would those be? I don't see any in the article or in my searches. I found plenty on Alan Rothenberg though. Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see Yeshiva World News and Mishpacha, which are presumed to be reliable, and I added Thrive Global which - as a project of Arianna Huffington - I would assume is reliable too. The latter two are in-depth probes into the subject and/or his wife, who may be even more notable. StonyBrook (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are millions of Jewish people and evangelical Christians within the United States. And he certainly is one of the most well known attorneys in Philadelphia to everyone. That’s why I decided to write an article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt123yv (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing is terrible. Zero factors for legal notability. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Shabbir[edit]

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

Non-notable historian, researcher and journalist with no evidence of notability. Current sources are passing mentions and give no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Störm (talk) 07:30, 8 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 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohound[edit]

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

Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. I have little doubt that these dogs exist but I could find nothing attributable about them. Cavalryman (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A topic has to be notable in order for it to be allowed in Wikipedia; the Eurohound isn't. Cavalarious (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. There are several sled-related Google books that mention them. They are probably well known in the sledding community, and I suggest that if this article was deleted then it would be recreated again fairly quickly. William Harristalk 04:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is one I struggled with, but I could not and still cannot find any attributable RS about these dogs, I have heard about them before but I am unsure where. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changed my position, nobody appears to be interested, if it is notable then someone will recreate it in the future. William Harristalk 11:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another crossbreed that was bred for a purpose but never developed into a purebred. I'm not seeing it as notable, or listed with any recognizable/notable registries as a breed, or with any FSS to verify parentage or that it is a purebred. Just doesn't cut the mustard per GNG, V or N. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alaskan Huskies aren't pure breed either, but are the most used breed for sleddog races (mostly for longdistance races) in the US and Canada and for that very notable. The Eurohound on the other hand is the most used sleddog in Europe, where you got more short- and mid-distance races. So I don't see why "not being a purebred" is even important in this matter or why Eurohounds are less notable. As an alternative, maybe a section on the Alaskan Husky page would be enough, since the Eurohounds partly descend from AlaskansFratzengulasch (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No reliable sources provided, objection appears to be based on I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. William Harristalk 07:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closer - the above user Fratzengulasch is a SPA or potential block/t-ban evader with no other contributions but this iVote. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. This appears to be one person's WP:Neologism for another person's personal crossbreed. That person, Egil Ellis, apparently calls them "Scandinavian Hounds". There's a description here, from page 102, which may be a WP:RS; another is here, but that title is published by the august house of Books on Demand. Perhaps just WP:TOOSOON? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Törnqvist[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable, seeming to fail to meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC.

He does come close to meeting #1 of ACADEMIC, but it appears that Tornqvist indexes have not had sufficient impact. He does also come close to meeting a broad definition of #2, having an award named after him, but not awarded to him. However, this award does not seem to "highly prestigious" within Finland, and it is not so internationally, and so again it seems he does not qualify.

Neither of the two provided independent sources covering Tornqvist are substantial, with one of them being an obituary. However, the other source is a Swedish encyclopedia dedicated to correcting the under-representation of Finnish history within world encyclopedias, so it is possible that the individual is sufficiently notable in Scandinavia to warrant inclusion.

A search for additional sources that would affirm notability do not provide anything, but I have been unable to comprehensively review Swedish or Finnish sources due to an inability to read Swedish or Finnish. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a little more coverage. This book describes the subject's contributions to population forecasting. This indicates that he was elected a fellow of The Econometric Society (not sure if this rises to the level of meeting WP:PROF#C3). The reference here indicates that the subject was known as "the grandfather of Finnish statistics", but I don't see the subject described that way in other sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Törnqvist created a method used to construct widely cited price indexes around the world. Independent of that, he taught Linux Torvalds to program. The nomination for deletion is absurd. I recommend WP:Speedy keep, because deletion discussions are pretty painful. - econterms (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately, while the Törnqvist equation is used somewhat widely, it doesn't seem like the "independent reliable sources" showing it to have "significant impact" exist. As for Linus, while an interesting piece of trivia I don't think it is sufficient to make Tornqvist independently notable? BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Entries on him in Uppslagsverket Finland and Suomen kansallisbiografia are enough. (Either one of them alone might be enough.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I considered those entries before making the AFD, but I don't think they meet the requirement for "significant coverage", given their extreme brevity. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you translate the Suomen kansallisbiografia you will discover that what you actually see there is a brief summary, that the full text is 5360 characters long, and that the full text of the article is available to subscribers. I also found a reference to a 14-page article about the subject, but not the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I didn't think to look at the 'metadata' below. Between five hundred and a thousand words words is better than what I thought it was. I tried to access the document myself, but unsurprisingly I was unable to find a copy of a Finnish Biographical Encyclopedia over here. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't appear to have access to it either but fortunately the information we're using from it can be found in the summary. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's the Kansallisbiografia entry for free:
        Nordberg, Leif (23 March 2007). "Leo Törnqvist". Biografiasampo (in Finnish).
        85.76.3.10 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Works for me — thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to good arguments made above, the article introducing the Törnqvist index has been cited 800+ times according to GS. With at least one other highly cited articles that shows up in the default GS search, this supports a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to establish notability. Pavlor (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton)#Reception. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky the Pizza Dog[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Hawkeye (Clint Barton). BOZ (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional chara. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. I'm not sure there's anything worth merging, but I'm not opposed to a redirect. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You know... I was going to say simply redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton), but then I looked at the Hawkeye article to see how much he comes up...only in the reception. BUT, what a mention in the reception it was! He was covered extensively in this WIRED article. That got me thinking that if this was praised so highly, there must be more out there, so I went to Comic Book Roundup to check. Well, there are so many sites that actually chose to review this that there are too many to bother linking. Here is the overall link, and you can see several mentions of him in there: [8]. His story also won the Eisner award in 2014. Clearly a reception section should be created to capture some of this, but the sources WP:NEXIST based on this alone. There's probably more, but this already meets GNG. (One could argue it should be changed to focus on the work, but that is not a deletion argument, that is an improvement.) -2pou (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that based on the current state of the article or your review of discovered sources above? -2pou (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time for discussion of sources brought up in the last day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton), where in #Reception, said Wired article already discusses Lucky. The dog is apparently closely linked to his fictional owner, but does not transcend him, i.e. a stand-alone article is overkill. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton)#Reception, where it receives all the attention it should.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 2pou. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:58, 8 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 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Eight[edit]

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

WP:NBOOK fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - not a fictional element. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no reviews on ProQuest or on newspapers.com. Haukur (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LG Shine[edit]

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

What makes a phone model notable? Major awards (not shown here, only some minor ones). Reviews from major publications (not shown here, of course, some low quality reviews on a blog or two can be found). Overall, not seeing any coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, all there is are press-releases and low quality blog/SM reviews and like. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm going to admit that I'm a geek and collect stuff like this first of all. There aren't many LG handsets that are notable, the Shine is certainly on the upper end of notability for that manufacturer. Amongst the news coverage I see Engadget, Gizmodo, Wired and CNET. From what I can recall there was quite a fuss about the device at the time, however article rot seems to have removed any mainstream news stories that I can recall. I would suggest that if LG handsets are mentioned at all, this is one of the more notable ones. Shritwod (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Specific historic phone models can be notable. LG is major manufacturer of such. This is a decent article, with photos and development. J947 provides assertion this is one of the more notable LG ones. --Doncram (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, I just relisted it. Shritwod is who you are referring to. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Aguiar[edit]

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

This is an autobiography. The subject has won no awards, has had only a series of minor media appearances, and does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Vanity page. A loose necktie (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; absolutely nothing of any value to GNG on the web. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is good reason Wikipedia has a policy against atubiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In terms of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, the notability test is not the things the article says, but the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. For example, a person is not "notable" for appearing in a film if your source for the claim is a video clip of the film's trailer on a streaming platform; a person becomes notable for appearing in a film if the appearance led reliable sources (i.e. media) to write and publish journalistic coverage about the appearance. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even on a Google search there's literally nothing better out there. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn: we are not a place where people are entitled to have an article about them just because they exist, we are an encyclopedia where an article becomes earned by passing a notability criterion and receiving media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 12 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. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412 T 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John McHugh Sr.[edit]

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

While he has received some recent coverage due to his longevity, don't think he meets WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus

Keep Easily passes GNG with WP:RSs also passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In war he was highly decorated. Two of his awards were the Silver Star and Bronze Star.

Additional significant awards and honors

The State of New York placed him in its Veterans Hall of Fame.
His hometown Whitestone, New York named a street in honor of McHugh. Lightburst (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to be clear, I think that if you get Silver Star, or the Navy Cross (or the comparable in the other branches), that should be automatic notability. I mean for crying out loud a person who plays a single professional game of soccer is notable and someone who actually did something valiant and noble isn't (hell, I think any Bronze Star recipient is eminently more notable than any sports player)? Unfortunately, however, those aren't the standards WP has. And unfortunately the NYS Veteran's Hall of Fame doesn't qualify either.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Grapes: I am sorry about my !voting delete on the AfDs for articles you started about mobile home parks and other WP:GEOLAND fails. 1, 2, 3 . I hope this AfD nomination is not an example of Sour grapes. The subject passes both GNG and ANYBIO as I have stated. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your disingenuous personal attack above is completely worthless. I had prodded this back in June, and had let the article develop over the intervening months. Your recent edits yesterday and today had it pop up on my watchlist, which is when I took another look at it. Although it is curious how you targeted those AfD's you mention above without any prior involvement in Arizona geo articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that an AFD is a personal attack is not coming close to assuming good faith. You should probably apologize for that. ApLundell (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [9] Significant coverage of him in that reliable source. How many soldiers get into a Veterans Hall of Fame? And the Silver Star is a notable and well known award. The coverage of him being interviewed about his experiences on various news media is enough to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and the canvassing starts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was previously listed and worked on by ARS members earlier this year. Canvassing is an unfounded personal attack that you have used previously used at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOLDIER clarifies notability requirements for soldiers. I don't believe this person qualifies. The Silver Star has been awarded to well over a 100,000 people and is not our nation's "highest award for valor", which, according to WP:SOLDIER would be required to establish notability on its own. The best claim of notability is the co-named street, which I don't believe is enough. (Notice that co-naming a street after someone is largely ceremonial. The primary name of the street usually doesn't actually change.) ApLundell (talk)
Keep Article was previously improved by me per this discussion. Meets WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussion (June 19, 2019 noted on article talk page) does not exist that I can find. If it does, serial deletion discussions are just a waste of valuable editor time. Indeed, given the state and sourcing of this article, there was not even pretextual compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:Canvassing claim, made without supportable evidence, should be withdrawn. It seems like SOP for User:onel5969, so I won't further burden this discussion by suggesting that an apology is in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I researched and worked on this article previously, and would not have done so if I didn't think it was worth keeping. It's on my watchlist. Apparently it was proded before by the nom, and now months later the nom is AfDing it during ongoing animosities with the creator. Spice is life I guess. Anyway, I think there are enough sources for GNG, and his significance is demonstrated. Most vets don't have this kind of recognition. -- GreenC 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in McHugh's biography justifies a page under WP:SOLDIER. As near as I can tell, McHugh is not in the New York Veterans Hall of Fame (if there is one); he's in the New York Senate Veterans Hall of Fame, which from its web page, doesn't appear to have a physical location. I can't find a reference to a "Fort Eger Badge" except on McHugh's page; if such an award exists, please provide a link. McHugh was not and could not be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation; that award is made to a unit and assigned soldiers are allowed to wear it forever. McHugh's page has the flavor of violating WP:NOTAMEMORIAL.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet: Thanks for the information. I find many references to the awards of McHugh - some not RS, however I do not suspect Stolen Valor. I am curious about the presidential unit citations and other awards that you have mentioned. Here is another non RS reference to the many awards. My hope is that these clues may lead us to RS of the awards. I think the FB post was taken from this RS. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend:, I never meant to suggest stolen valor and regret if what I wrote seemed like it. It did occur to me after I had checked out yesterday that the "Fort Eger Badge" could be the Fourragère (Belgian), which is still a unit award not representing any personal accomplishment.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails SOLDIER and the coverage is mostly local media outlets and a couple of human-interest interviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not seeing where this gentleman raises to keep status for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this subject bio has only local interest; trivial. He was not of general rank and just does not meet WP:SOLDIER from what I see; like many of the articles that were "Band of Brothers (miniseries)" members, so to speak, which were deleted. WP:MEMORIAL, also applies here. Kierzek (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem notable. His experience on D-Day, which forms a big chunk of the article and seems to be part of the justification for notability, doesn't appear to be any different from most of the other soldier of the 1st Division that would have landed that day. Also being a recipient of the Silver Star also doesn't justify notability as it is the fourth level gallantry award behind the MoH, DSC and DSM. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's the third level. The DSM isn't a gallantry medal. Still doesn't make him notable though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this gentleman is kept then I see no reason not to have articles on every single other veteran of every war that has ever been fought. Given that would patently be ridiculous I fail to see what his notability is. Even if we take his decorations into account, hundreds of thousands of third-level decorations (like the Silver Star) have been awarded over the centuries. The Bronze Star is so low as not to count as equivalent to a true decoration in most countries (e.g. approximately equivalent to a mention in dispatches in the UK, only probably much more common). They have been handed out like sweets in many campaigns. He doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Just typical local coverage for a local hero. You could find similar for any distinguished military veteran anywhere in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and per above comments by Necrothesp Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I disagree with the reasons given for deleting. GNG is clearly met as is SOLDIER - #4 Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; - he played a significant role in not one, but three significant major battles: the D Day invasion, the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. He earned a Silver and Bronze Star, was inducted into the State of New York's Veterans Hall of Fame, and has a street named after him. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying a tripod for a weapon that was never used is a "significant role" in a battle? ApLundell (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing words. Storming the bloodiest beach (Omaha) in the most significant (Turning Point Battle)...in addition to participation in the another historically significant turning point, the Battle of the Bulge. Reasonable editors can disagree, however they do not hand out Silver and Bronze stars to insignificant soldiers. Nor do they name streets after them or put them in any Hall of Fame. In any event, my argument is that McHugh passes GNG...the requirement is for reliable sources, and on that measure McHugh passes. The muttering about "local" sources is not mentioned in any guideline for WP:N. Sources only need to be reliable. Per WP:SOLDIER It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An important role" is not just being there. He apparently did his duty just like millions of other soldiers and that is honorable but not notable.Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article have non-trivial reliable secondary sources? If so the article passes our notability guidelines. As an aside: I had a stepfather who was in WWII. He drove a tank in the Battle of the Bulge. And I have an Uncle who was a Marine in Viet Nam, he was in the Tet Offensive. Nothing is written about either of them in any RSs- they have no gallantry medals, no streets named after them, no hall of fame inductions. Consider keeping the article because it passes the tougher GNG standard. Lightburst (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I ask, do you think therefore that every single one of the hundreds of thousands who have won a third-level decoration throughout history should have an article? Would that not be utterly ridiculous? Or does this only apply to soldiers from the modern West who have a lot written about them? Given that would be a clear breach of WP:SYSTEMIC, we would surely have to extend it to all others as well. That's every veteran of every war in history. Off you go! Better start now. Alternatively, we could follow our own guidelines and not write articles about non-notable people who have only received routine coverage in local sources. There are very good reasons that we have decided that corporals with one third-level decoration are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole: The use of hyperbole does not help make your case. I have just described why my soldier stepfather and my soldier uncle do not qualify for an article. On WP we keep articles on subjects where reliable sources are found to show notability. We in fact have articles about complete rubbish on WP because a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is found to keep. We also delete great articles for the same wrongheaded reason. This subject is notable because our guidelines for GNG say it is. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As did hundreds of thousands of others. I assume you agree with articles for every single one of them then? Every soldier who fought in the Battle of Stalingrad. Every veteran of the Battle of Waterloo. Every pilot of the Battle of Britain. Every soldier who went over the top at the Battle of the Somme. All very notable actions. All obviously worthy of articles under your interpretation of WP:SOLDIER. Fighting in a notable action does not equate to playing a significant role in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp - every year in the US we honor Veterans Day, but we also honor D-Day separately because it was an historic turning point in WWII, and McHugh was not just part of that event as what the oppose arguments are attempting to reduce him to when saying "as did hundreds of thousands of others" while naming various other battles in the war that are not honored separately as is D-Day. McHugh was inducted into the Veterans Hall of Fame because he fought in 3 historic battles. As a member of The Big Red One in the Invasion of Normandy - The invaders were able to establish a beachhead as part of Operation Overlord after a successful "D-Day", the first day of the invasion. He was one of the first and firsts are notable on Wikipedia. This biography clearly passes GNG, N and V. The same would apply to any other Hall of Fame inductees with similar coverage in RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're presumably aware that the USA is not the only country in the world or the only country covered by Wikipedia? In Britain we remember the Battle of Britain, the Somme, etc, etc. And yes, also D-Day. All with many thousands of veterans, many of whom fought in multiple notable battles and were decorated more than McHugh, but still not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. We don't have halls of fame, however. That's an American thing. That doesn't make our veterans any less notable. Every country has battles they particularly remember. Russia remembers Stalingrad, for instance. And pretty much every veteran has some coverage in local newspapers. If this passes AfD, which would clearly be utterly ridiculous, then I move that every single veteran of every single war of every single country should be entitled to an article. Surely you see how ludicrous that would be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. The sources all seem to be human interest stories from an elderly soldier and don't show he was actually notable as a soldier, and he doesn't qualify under any of the SNG prongs. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep. Substantive sources have been cited, including a full obituary in Queens Chronicle. His notability seems quite equivalent to many other soldiers with Wikipedia biographies, including Tadeusz Arentowicz. I think it's basically good enough to qualify under ANYBIO.Patiodweller (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor local newspapers are not notable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Arentowicz probably shouldn't have an article either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the wrong words to describe what is required ...notable sources. I do not know if you are doing it on purpose so I will AGF. Regarding sources, the word that is used over and over in our WP:V policy and in our WP:N guideline is "reliable". And we have multiple reliable non-trivial secondary sources here. Editors who favor deletion will demand something other than what is required by our policies and guidelines. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay...while I have been citing actual Wikipedia policies, and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointedly paying lip service to AGF is not the same as actually assuming good faith. It's closer to the reverse.

Anyway, Your claims about what "editors who favor deletion" are "demanding" are incorrect. Most delete !voters seem to be suggesting that the WP:SOLDIER guideline should be followed. Which, despite your accusations, is a policy-based argument. ApLundell (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not particularly noteworthy, I dont see anything in the article that makes him stand out from thousands of other soldiers that would justify a stand-alone article. Did his bit for the country gained a few gongs and returned to an unremarkable life at home. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Atsme's arguments on the recognitions that he has received. Behindthekeys (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple reliable sources like his obituary in The Queens Courier, CBS and a National TV appearance on Fox. This article meets the general notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG guidlines.Djflem (talk) 07:46, 10 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. Given that a redirect is now not possible. Sandstein 08:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seikimatsu no Angel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK; article has no sources; subject has no official English translated version nor adaptations. lullabying (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erika Kurahashi. She's the author. ミラ P 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Lullabying: While an English language release is preferred, it is not required if enough WP:RS cover the subject. This is the case for taboo subjects such as incest and lolicon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a bit of a surprise finding no reliable sources for a series with colorful attractive artwork. I could find nothing though using the kanji and romanji names to search. I would not redirect to the author as she appears to show no indication of notability and will likely be at AfD soon as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only two commenting so far, would be helpful for additional input on whether a redirect or deletion is more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lord Roem: I don't know if this is of relevance but Erika Kurahashi has also been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kurahashi. lullabying (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well if that article ends up getting deleted, then a redirect would obviously be infeasible. Thanks for flagging. Good for any remaining discussion here to note that. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Em Lodge[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP. I could not locate any significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE found no independent reliable sources to support subject passing WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In terms of qualifying for inclusion in Wikipedia, the notability test is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality and geographic range of the sources that can be provided to properly verify that the things it says are true. But there are no sources here whatsoever, and I'm not finding anything suitable either. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a trace in IMDB for anything mentioned. Now that's unusual ... is this a hoax? Nfitz (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyomi Banxxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the sources currently in the article are all interviews, database entries, PR content, or award rosters. Ms. Banxxx' industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only an Elite Daily "contributor" article covering a seminar on race and pornography at which Ms. Banxxx had spoken[10], a Mic article which quotes her on the same topic[11], and various other sources with trivial, unreliable, or promotional coverage. Cheers, gnu 57 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as porncruft per Gnu57. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per depreciated WP:PORNBIO - and fails GNG Wm335td (talk) 20:26, 11 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. There must be verifiable sources which demonstrate notability for a product. There is a consensus that this phone does not have sourcing which satisfies our guidelines for notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Tough Talker[edit]

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

An article about a phone which doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. The sources about the phone are all from a forum, which isn't reliable because it is entirely user-generated content. A Google search turns up almost results about the phone, especially News and Books searches. This appears to be a product that made no real impact on the world, and isn't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vintage cell phones as a whole are very, very niche. Finding official places to cite is very hard with stuff like this. Motorola doesn’t have information about phones this old on their website, and I can’t think of any other “official” places that have lots of information about any vintage cell phone.

The Tough Talker is very notable, because it is the precursor to what became the Motorola bag phone, a very popular range of phones Motorola produced for many years.

Also, I am only citing mobilecollectors.net for years the phones were made, as they can be told by the serial numbers on the phone, and those don’t lie. It’s very hard to figure out exactly when some of these were introduced, and when production ceased, so we can only go by the oldest and newest-known ones we can find.

I just thought it would be very nice to have an article about these phones, as there really isn’t a good one elsewhere.

Also, there is very, very little citing in the Motorola bag phone article, so why is that being allowed to stay up?

Sure, maybe the Tough Talker isn’t the most well-known phone in existence, but it’s very historically significant for Motorola, and deserves its own article. Why should it be forgotten to time because it’s not the most famous phone in existence?

If y’all really feel like the article should be deleted, I can’t do anything about that. I am just trying to do some good here and create a decent article about these phones, because there isn’t one elsewhere.

It’s crazy that y’all are fighting me so hard on this. Clearly no appreciation for history here. This article has been written with facts from a neutral point of view, so do your research! I have spent hours researching these phones, which is probably a lot more than y’all have. I definitely won’t be using Wikipedia in the future. This has been an utterly terrible experience.

80sCompaqPC (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that the details are not a useful addition to the project, it's that it doesn't seem to pass the threshold for notability in its own right. That's why I suggest that it would make a good addition to the Motorola Bag Phone article which deals with this topic as a whole. Shritwod (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we can merge it, I suppose that would be okay. There needs to be some decent info out there on these phones.

80sCompaqPC (80sCompaqPC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this keep !vote. What I don't see is an argument which follows our policies of WP:GNG.

Merge - looking at the references I see that it appears to be a version of the Motorola 4500X which is covered under Motorola Bag Phone. I suggest that this material may make a useful addition to that article, it may also be that some of those "Bag Phones" are notable enough to be spun out into their own articles. Shritwod (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any significant coverage to demonstrate notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tough Talker was a very popular phone back in the day. Also, find a “trusted” source to cite that tells what member of the DynaTAC family the Motorola America Series 820 bag phone was based on. I know the answer to it, but I won’t be able to find a place that will satisfy y’all to cite it from. I’ve have been researching vintage Motorola cellphones for a decade now, so I know a little bit about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80sCompaqPC (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you that the tough talker was a popular phone. I also believe you that significant coverage in reliable sources are hard to find and/or nonexistant. However, per our guidelines, every article MUST pass our general notability guidelines or a subject-specific guideline (which this wouldn't fall under). --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage. We don't relax our sourcing standards for topics that fail to meet notability requirements, regardless of how popular they may be. –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not demonstrated due to lack of coverage. ~riley (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Schubert[edit]

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

In the 13 years of this article, it's only amassed 3 sources, and seems to fail WP:BASIC. No additional sources have been added since the BLP sources template was added nearly 8 years ago. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On thing to note is that this article had 5K trimmed off it by an IP a week or so ago. that said, I think Schubert likely meets GNG, as I see some evidence of success and coverage (the "Masters of Flash Book, a film at Sundance) in the past. He is actually getting huge media coverage over the past week or so in Sweden for having sued and lost over his claimed ownership of the IP (as in intellectual property) of something called the babblers or Bablarna (maybe) in Swedish. I added five or six refs to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some coverage, but mainly about the court case. Most of the nominator's arguments are irrelevant to notability, which is based on the existence of coverage, not how many sources are cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 10:07, 8 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 The Passion of the Christ#Sequel. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of the Christ[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as per WP:NOTFILM. The movie hasn't started shooting (indicated by its lack of significant coverage), so it's currently stuck in development period. As such, creating a Wikipedia article about it would be too soon. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Passion of the Christ: IMDB Pro is a reliable Industry source as it only accessible and editable by industry insiders, it has listed the film as in pre-production(meaning it has been "greenlit" but has not yet been filmed), has listed the runtime as a surprisingly oddly specific 167 minutes, posted up an official Teaser Poster for the film and has given an official projected release date. The movie is most likely being filmed "quietly"(to avoid trouble) due to the controversial nature of the production and the issues associated with the original film. Hollywood has made movies entirely in secret due to security concerns before(I'm fact the 2004 Original was also a high security production and it was not publicized much before filming took place in secret), usually using alias production names. I do agree it is a little too soon, and the article maybe should have it's content placed in the "sequel section" of the page for the original film. Although it is clearly happening, the projected release date from the industry source is 2021 at the earliest. It is indeed slightly too early for a page, even if the production is a "high security" film production and possibly already filming some scenes. I think all relevant content should be moved to the sequel section of the 2004 film.Colliric (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTFILM. Article's references are mere mentions of the film's potential – it has not been verified to have entered production yet. Editor above commented "The movie is most likely being filmed 'quietly'(to avoid trouble)," which is completely speculative WP:OR and cannot be proven or disproven without verifiable independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Passion of the Christ#Sequel until it enters the appropriate level of production. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Passion of the Christ#Sequel where the content properly belongs until the sequel is released. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Navigator#In science fiction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astrogator[edit]

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

Fictional term. Might belong in wiktionary but it fails at being an encyclopedic article due to failures of WP:GNG. Sure, it is used in a number of works, but outside making a "list of books and other media that use the term astrogator" there is is little to work with, and such a list would fail WP:LISTN anyway. I am not sure if there is any valid redirect target (Interstellar travel#In fiction?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 29 November 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} 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge An astrogator does not necessarily involve interstellar travel, but Technology in science fiction#Spaceflight could be an adequate merge target. That article needs some heavy cleanup._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to navigator as a better(?) fit than the other two redirect targets suggested. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that is better. I have created a section at Navigator#In science fiction as a merge target that can be used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. typical fancruft trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Currently just a dictionary term without analysis. Redirecting to the above seems fine. TTN (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Navigator#In science fiction sounds fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Navigator#In science fiction - although I remember reading those stories in Campbell's anthologies which were later published by the SFBC. And Starman Jones sits on my nightstand, don't know how many times I've re-read that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 7 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 Sleeper (1973 film). People who feel like it can merge stuff from history. Sandstein 08:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasmatron[edit]

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

Here's a 'fun' topic to discuss. Problems are the usual ones: list of appearances in fictional media (quite a few, given the usual har-har associated with this; this also makes search for sources painful; there have even been several books and dozen+ articles that use this term in their title, etc.). But all it means this likely fails WP:GNG. No source I see discusses it in depth, the extent of analysis is that this term has been coined by Woody Allen's movie Sleeper (and Allen was mocking Wilhelm Reich's ideas), and then a sentence about in-universe plot (device that allows to trigger orgasms, har har) and then was used in few other works. The point to bear in mind that while the joke of Orgasmatron is used to ridicule some things, said joke itself has not been subject to any in-depth analysis, and so the article is simply unable to develop beyond a two-liner definition and then a list of works using this term. Is this enough to warrant an encyclopedic article? I think that this should be simply a paragraph at best in the Sleeper movie (but there is nothing to merge there from the current article). PS. As far as I can tell, this term does not have its own entry in any encyclopedia of sf terms or such, neither. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking keep, cleanup, rename maybe. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete - Honestly this feels a bit like WP:SYNTH material to me. It doesn't seem as if any reliable sources actually link the 'orgasmatron' from the original film to any of the vaguely similar devices in other media/pop culture. Unless a reliable source talks about them together, it doesn't make sense for us in Wikivoice to state or imply that they are related. Michepman (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Sleeper (1973 film). Take the In Sleeper (1973) section, and distill it down to a few sentences. The Slate, Guardian, and LA Times references already in the article are surely sufficient to support this brief mention. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, as sgeureka mentions below, moving Orgasmatron (disambiguation) to Orgasmatron make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Sleeper (1973 film) per WP:SYNTH and RoySmith. Orgasmatron (disambiguation) can/should then be moved the the undabbed name. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 11 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) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Nagpal[edit]

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

Non-notable story-teller and brand coach. Ref's are mix of press releases and syndicate feeds. No effective coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This wasn't transcluded correctly, so I have added it to the last day. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been me moving the AfD page. Thought I changed everything but may have forgot something. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - there's broad coverage in the news, but I'm unsure if we could consider that significant enough. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these, they are not the best. One is blog. Three of these are syndicated feeds (him talking), one is twitter feed, one is a single sentence, one is him as resident complaining about the noise of construction, One is the The Dubai Health Awards which is not him and one is a LinkedIn article by him, that is syndicated as a feed. The first ref is a real secondary ref, but the rank are not the best nor highest quality refs. scope_creep^Talk 23:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage seems to be much broader than deep. Changing my !vote. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the WP:REFBOMBING characteristic of this editor's creations, the subject does not appear to me to pass WP:GNG. Also very likely WP:UPE. -- Begoon 07:24, 7 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.