< 10 November	12 November >

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe Metro[edit]

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

Defunct media outlet, ~~original author has had similar pages removed in the past through speedy deletion~~. ~~No secondary sources seem to be available online~~ Whilst there are online sources available, these seem to be only passing mentions and do not on their own prove notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Going defunct is not a reason delete, censor or change history. The article itself has external links to the bbc/reuters which seem online to me in the UK for starters. Secondary about published story at Global Media Journal African Edition 2013 Vol 7(2): P.184 for example.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Djm-leighpark. I never suggested that a defunct media outlet on its own would not be notable - however, there are clear questions about notability here with the sourcing as its presented. Looking at the BBC and Reuters sources you mention, they are only the briefest of passing mentions which IMHO would not indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88 Your nomination commented on their seeming to be no online secondary sources and it is disproved. Your allegation the article creator, who I make to be Africa Festival and who does not seem to be been informed of this AfD and who you have alleged in your nomination has had similar pages speedily deleted in the past .... Well I see User talk:Africa Festival they have had several images speedied (not similar) and also a speedy for Africa Center for Holistic Management which could only be called similar at a push. So the whole nomination seems flawed. WP:BEFORE seems inadequate. Given apparent problems for the peoples of what was the bread basket of Africa a negative attack on its media seems quite distasteful. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark whoa, let’s slow down here. You seem to be accusing me on a malicious attack on a whole country’s media which could not be further from the truth. I’m simply trying to clear a backlog here of pages which were already tagged to be factually inaccurate, and in doing my research, I personally could not find any evidence for notability. Let’s take a step back and look at the evidence:

1. My original nomination was badly worded and I have now corrected it. I invite you to look again at the sources and let me know if you think they provide notability.

2. I did not notify Africa Festival because they have not made a single edit since 2009, so appear to be not using Wikipedia any more.

3. RE: Speedy Deletes, this is a genuine mistake on my part. I was referring to another page where several former Zimbabwe media pages were nominated in a short space of time because they were promotional pieces. I have corrected this above.

4. Yes there are online sources, but they still stink. They are the briefest of passing mentions and as such do not prove notability IMHO. I am a new editor and happy to be corrected through consensus.

Please to not scummer those sources ... the writers were in good faith and they are suited for WP:V. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. Please assume that all of this is done in good faith, as you appear to be accusing me of a malicious attack. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess, though you should probably look at feet before you put your shoes on methinks and then your might be righteous but seems you didn't. 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. we tend to be very flexible about media organizations. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hale[edit]

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

This person is not a notable songwriter. None of the sources in the article meet the reliability requirement, and I could not find any other sources. This article was recreated after having been deleted under A11 and G3. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references in the article at present are generally trivial mentions of the person having written a song, no in-depth coverage to demonstrate meeting notability guidelines. I also believe this article is incorrectly named, during the history of the page the person has been variously called "Blair Gormal" (also deleted at this location), "Phoenix Decker" and the current "Marcus Hale". The only name I can see to be correct is "Blair Gormal". FDW777 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with nom. he does not show significant RS to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing to show that this person passes either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the comments above that the subject does not seem to meet notability. Also the issue with the name as pointed out by User:FDW777 seems odd and raises questions about accuracy. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a narrow but emerging consensus that the article can (and should) be cleaned up, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raven & Kreyn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage. A majority of sources found only cover their songs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Last AfD was closed with a weak no consensus on a single delete vote. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. We typically delete articles about DJ's, especially those whose forte tends to be just remixes. There is an impressive-looking wall of references, but AllMusic (footnote 1) doesn't even mention them, and about 20 of the others are unreliable. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, per JalenFolf and Bearian. Edwardx (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterias 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, while at least one is required. Added Allmusic references with their artist names and real names (see footnotes 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 47). Looking at their discography, they're not remixes artists as supposed by Bearian and all references can be found on any music streaming platform such as iTunes or Spotify. Also there is significant coverage in EDM press such as We Rave You, Dancing Astronaut, EDMJoy. FlangerDude (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — FlangerDude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hi, can you please give links to two or three sources that have significant coverage about them and that are WP:Reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I will object to both criteria 2 and 12 of this statement for two reasons. My objection to Criteria 2 is that Beatport's charts are not considered national charts and therefore are not enough to meet this criteria. As for criteria 12, none of the stations sourced in prose are even national radio stations, but rather are merely internet radio stations run by music artists. I cannot comment on their contribution to the criteria at this time. No comment on the other criteria mentioned here. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Atlantic306, here are a few links i found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Astronaut and We Rave You, first one should be reliable since it has its own article on Wiki: https://dancingastronaut.com/2018/02/maxim-schunk-raven-kreyn-name-feat-bishop/, https://weraveyou.com/2017/01/raven-kreyn-with-you/, https://weraveyou.com/2016/07/steff-da-campo-raven-kreyn-chicago/

Hi JalenFolf, I agree with you about criteria 2, i couldn't find anything about national charts. However it is stated that they debuted radio broadcasting on the national french radio Fun Radio, which is one of the biggest national radios in France. There's also a video, and official content from Fun Radio linked in the sources. Still, they meet more than 1 criteria, so they don't fail WP:MUSICBIO. FlangerDude (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they have been featured on a national radio station but as well as Dancing Astronauts it would help to have some more significant coverage in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current version of the article has way too many unreliable sources to prop up minor events and associations with other people (see WP:CITEBOMB), but the act has achieved a small amount of notability in France and some notice in the genre press. The article should be cleaned up and reduced to verifiable facts, but that is a different process than deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not the genre of club dance music I like at all, but these guys are pretty well known in their genre of dance music and I would think it's very likely that there are features on them in the major dance music magazines... but as ever, because these are not available online, this can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They count more than 100+ millions streams and have been signed by the biggest labels of the industry such as Spinnin' Records, Universal Music, Warner, Atlantic Records etc. They even made some shows on Tomorrowland (2019). I don't think there are many arguments to make this article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.109.136 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Stephens (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claim from last afd of significant parts failed to identify any. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a person who passes WP:NACTOR. Has had substantial roles on television series, in movies and in music videos. The article has reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What roles? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Just bits parts and music videos. Spleodrach (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may circle back to see if I can find more. Lightburst (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual, lacks significant roles in notable productions. Not every person credited has a significant role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill roles in music videos and the like, fails WP:NACTOR by a mile. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG & possesses very little coverage of which aren’t even reliable sources. So I’m inclined to uphold the rationale of both Bearian & Johnpacklambert Celestina007 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No significant role , does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above keep !vote claiming that NACTOR is met is undermined by the subject's own web site biography stating "He is best known for playing villains on TV and films" with no mention of any actual specific significant roles. A review of the actual roles in the filmogrpahy make it abundantly clear that the subject has not had significant roles. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 660. Views are split between deleting, keeping / improving and merging; this should be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

660 in Japan[edit]

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

Page barely has any information, just who the monarch was and a single birth, only country to have one of these pages for 660. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems like it is destined to be a perma-stub. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added four more events to the year, something the nom could have done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also added another birth. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And another event. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -perfectly good stub, a type of which there is a consensus to have. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, nominator has not given any valid reasons for deletion, appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should have been discussed on the talkpage, anyway improvements made show that it is a wikinotable year in Japan.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Why not have this at 660? Do we need each nation to have their own separate short article? Dream Focus 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: merge (without leaving redirect) to 7th century in Japan. At such a distant date, it is rare for a national article on a single year to be warranted. The same applies to the two other annual article 684 and 646. They at least have the merit of one exactly dated event. This one has none at all. Converting it to 660s in Japan might conceivably be feasible, but even so it is unlikely to get beyond a terse stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/delete to 660 or Asuka period. No reason that Year articles should automatically be kept because something happened then, we don't need 2000 years * 150 countries = 300,000 of these articles or whatever. Content can be preserved in the global article for that year or in the regional article for a longer time period. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 660, have struck out my above "keep", as 660 article is short enough to easily accommodate all of the info about Japan (as it presently does for other regions/countries), agree with above editors that there is really no need to have a separate "660 in Japan" article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Essentially, nobody except the nominator and one minor comment suggested the article should be deleted. The sources supplied during the debate strengthen the argument towards keeping. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Denyer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL. A lot of the citations are local media describing local politics, or just passing mentions. Awards are not notable. Fails WP:GNG. There's discussion on the Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging commenters on the talk page: Alarichall and Deryck Chan. I'd say this Guardian article amounts to one good source about the article subject. The other two articles listed on the talk page are sort of borderline passing mentions. In addition, there is this BBC article which is about an issue the article subject raised around postal voting forms. Notability looks doubtful at the moment unless more/better sources can be found. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best, as you imply, to bring the discussion here rather than continuing on the talk page. Thanks for finding that extra story too. For context, should anyone be reading, the articles that Tom Morris refers to are national coverage that I suggested might meet the general notability guideline that Denyer "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

Matthew Taylor, 'Bristol plans to become carbon neutral by 2030', The Guardian (14 November 2018). [Tom agrees this qualifies.]

Fiona Harvey, 'Climate takes centre stage as Green party launches campaign', The Guardian (6 November 2019). [This article has fourteen paragraphs of which nine are about Denyer and/or her campaign in Bristol West.]

Greg Dawson, 'Climate change: "I want to look my daughter in the eye"', BBC Politics Live (15 March 2019). [Three-minute piece of which one is about and/or interview with Denyer.]

But (developing a point I made on the talk page) I think these pieces in local news also meet the GNG criteria:

'Why the Greens think they can win Bristol West in the 2019 election', Bristol Post (7 November 2019) [All about Denyer and her campaign. This publication is a long-established print newspaper with a print circulation of 17,000.]

Ellie Pipe, 'Bristol's Response to the Climate Emergency', Bristol24/7 (12 November 2019) [19 paragraphs out of 41 about or quoting Denyer. This publication has a print circulation of 20,000 and an online monthly readership of 200,000. published since the aFD discussion began.]

These sit alongside a broad range of briefer mentions in local and national media (cited in the article). So that's my case for Denyer's notability! (For now :-) ) Alarichall (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Matthew Taylor piece in The Guardian is not about Denyer: it's about Bristol's plans to go carbon neutral. If Wikipedia wants to talk about city plans to go carbon neutral, it can do that in appropriate articles if it wants to. The whole thing looks WP:NOTNEWS to me. The Fiona Harvey piece in The Guardian is not about Denyer: there is one sentence that is actually about Denyer, the rest is election coverage and can be covered on election articles. The Greg Dawson BBC News thing is not about Denyer: it's about climate emergencies and Extinction Rebellion: again, that can be covered in articles on those things. The Bristol Post article is routine election coverage that can be found for large number of candidates who fail WP:NPOL: we don't create articles for candidates. Yes, you can thread together lots of citations in which Denyer is quoted, but none of these are significant coverage of Denyer. Bristol declaring a climate emergency is somewhat noteworthy, but WP:BLP1E. Routine election coverage is covered by election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these considered views. I look forward to picking this up properly, but just to note that WP:BLP1E is a red herring here: it applies 'If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event' (clearly not the case); 'if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual' (Denyer is clearly a public figure); 'if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented' (if you're thinking here of Bristol's climate emergency declaration, that event is significant and Denyer's role both substantial and well documented). Alarichall (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My error: I meant WP:1E. I quote, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of significant coverage of Denyer. Local sources are worth considering, but there isn't significant coverage of Denyer as a person or as a politician. WP:TOOSOON. Ralbegen (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I have written in the article talk page, I think the cited sources add up to establish sufficient notability. Deryck C. 13:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual meets GNG, even if as a local politician she would not normally meet NPOL. There are extensive sources, including significant national coverage, including the Gurpardian articles linked above. The movement that began with her efforts puts her beyond 1E as well. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Guardian piece is about Denyer: she is mentioned in both, but I fail to see how they meet WP:GNG requirements of being significant coverage of Denyer. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:POLOUTCOMES. Another discussion led me to have a look at the WP:POLOUTCOMES section linked from WP:NPOL. This paragraph strikes me as pertinent to Denyer's article: 'Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesperson for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone.' Denyer seems a neat match for this in relation to the climate emergency declaration. Alarichall (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Sansoucy[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a sailboat designer, and an equally poorly sourced article about his company. They've basically been lashed together into a self-fulfilling notability loop, because the only notability claim even being attempted in either article is its topic's association with the other topic (i.e. "this company is notable because it's owned by a guy who's notable because he owns this company") — and neither article shows even the first hint of any reliable source coverage, with the only "sources" being the company's own self-published website about itself and the organizational blog for the non-notable fan club of his company's products. Which means there are no reliable or notability-making sources present in either article, and nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to get over WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find was a couple of trademark entries. No SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improve - Surely there is some kind of Canadian, boating, or historical interest group who this article could be passed to to identify further sources? I added this article in good faith, along with many others, during a period of interest in multihull boat research. So much of that information was hard to find, and of course hard to source. Much of the literature is offline due to its popular literature nature (local boat magazines, etc.) and pre-internet. It would be a better result to pass the article on to interested / motivated people to extend instead of just throwing it out. But throw it out if you will. I think it is such a shame that so much of Wikipedia is falling away to this sort of policy. What is the benefit? Essentially there is none. No cost to host a page and wait for an interested soul. Deletion should be a last resort. prat (talk)

We happily host pages who meet the WP:N notability requirement. We do not host pages that do not meet the notability requirement.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While articles can be kept and flagged for referencing improvement if better, more notability-supporting sources are demonstrated to exist to improve it with, we do not keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody speculates that maybe better sources might exist even though nobody has actually found them. You have to show hard evidence that the article is improvable, by searching for better sources and showing what you found, before improvability becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:NOTPROMOTION, have been unable to find anything that suggests notability ie. awards, reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to prat, I appreciate these obscure niche areas, but the article as it stands has so very little to go on. If there were a few reliable sources, or as mentioned above, awards, reviews, historical documents, etc, to support the notability of the subject, you may be able to turn this AfD around. Netherzone (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hutchinson[edit]

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

Biography of a make-up artist and special effects technician, neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim of notability. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that he had film credits, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie for film crew in the absence of reliable source media coverage about the significance of their work -- and the only source being shown here at all is his paid-inclusion death notice on legacy.com. But that's not a notability-making source in and of itself, because everybody who dies gets one of those if their own family deigns to place one. There's simply nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have some actual media coverage about him and his work. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like your thorough AfD rationale and your attention to WP:BEFORE. The subject does not seem to fit anywhere like WP:CREATIVE. Wm335td (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's sad that he died so young, but we are not a web host for memorials. I don't see how he passes WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk)
Delete as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, a gsearch does not bring up any sources that contribute to his wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I as able to find this book but that seems to be a compilation of everybody who died in 2012 in the entertainment industry. But aside from that, there is nothing that would come close to being coverage that would establish that inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive!Drive![edit]

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

I am unable to find references that show how this group meets WP:NBAND. There is nothing charted, their releases are independent, and the coverage isn't significant. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline SPA account started the article. In addition several self published references promote the band. The Huffington Post article is substantial but it is about a member and not the band. WP:NOTRESUME WP:NOTPROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Olivia Swann[edit]

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

No notable sources, lead copied from the one existing source, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Article is extremely promotional in tone TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Content in the Draft namespace is handled by WP:MFD, not AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah Nanjeba Torsa[edit]

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

I don't see any kind of notability on this subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The references for this are written on the same topic. She just won Miss World Bangladesh 2019, that doesn't mean she is notable. WP:BLP fail. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Xain36 {talk} 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. She did win Miss World Bangladesh. Only the winner is notable. I could not find any reason why this article nominated the article for deletion. isn't reasonable for article for deletion. lot of news coverage available , even she is tv presenter, this article pass WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NahalAhmed, Please see WP:PSEUDO. Xain36 {talk} 17:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response. If she was second I would vote for delete, It would be wrong to say that just say it for single event, Dhaka tribune news statement here shown multiple work also got another award , as a tv actress , host and a national competition winner probably pass WP:GNG, Thanks.-Nahal^(T) 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Winning Miss World Bangladesh is enough to pass WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:ONEVENT it states if the event and the subject(in this case the winner) both have in-depth WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS then separate articles maybe created for them. And in this case it is not so for the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Doesn't apply here one event because Miss world Competition before she recived first prize for folk dancing ( Bangabandhu Shishu kishor Competition ) given Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. even multiple work tv host & model , i don't find any reason for deletion, Pass WP:RS & WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep She is proper notable public figure. She is a champion of MWB 2019 and champions always notable in Wikipedia rules. She is also a TV Host. I think this Afd should be remove.ChotoBhai (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ChotoBhai, Per WP:BIO1E: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. Xain36 {talk} 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination has raised suspicion; the other "delete" !vote is WP:JNN, and the intended nominator has agreed to close with this result. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Habib[edit]

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

Non-notable person. 113.150.100.49 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: Why should the article be deleted? Aren't the references enough? --CaeserKaiser (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nominator of AfD is currently blocked. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete. He may be a controversial figure (I do not know), but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No clear oor specific reason for deletion given, references (accpted in good faith) appear sufficient unless soemone with better access reviews and challenges them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was originally Meatsgains who tagged the article, but for whatever reason the discussion page was not created. Article creator "started" the discussion page with the question to Meatsgains above, then the IP followed up by applying templates and making the page look like a proper discussion page. No objection to a speedy close, but I would have hoped that Meatsgains would chime in here eventually with their justification for the nom. --Finngall ^talk 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry for the delayed response. I was the one who initially nominated the page for WP:AfD for what appeared to be lacking notability and the page's poor references to Facebook, Linkedin, and Youtube. Not sure why the discussion page was not created once I tagged the page but I'm not opposed to closing this as keep given the discussion thus far. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger versus lion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-encyclopaedic topic, non-encyclopaedic content – this is a more or less perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. This nomination follows recent discussion of the page here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Feels like a very large stretch to call this a notable topic. The bulk of the article appears to be synthesizing the comparison by using sources that cover only tigers or only lions, and then trying to put those sources on the same pedestal, which is pretty much the definition of synth. If there is a notable topic, TNT and start over with sources that specific compare and contrast the two animals. --Masem (t) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utterly unencyclopaedic. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is based on the shallow argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It utterly fails to address the previous nomination which took place just last year and was a clear Keep. This is therefore a disruptive nomination per WP:DELAFD which explains that it's "disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic has a high readership and has persisted for many years. That's because the topic is very notable and so there are numerous sources. The topic passes WP:GNG and any difficulties are just an ordinary matter of editing and dispute resolution per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you about what you said, Andrew Davidson, particularly that it passes WP:GNG, but the way I see it now, I don't need it to be in Wiki now, because the information that's in this article now exists outside Wiki, so the deletion of this article within Wiki won't necessarily delete the information that's in the article, because like I said to another user, there's more to the Internet than what Wiki can have. Leo1pard (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC); edited 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From DELAFD: "It can be disruptive" to renominate articles for deletion. Not "is" disruptive, the difference between a good-faith nomination and a bad-faith nomination. Please stay clear of making accusations of disruption - subjects do repeatedly get nominated for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE lists the steps which nominator should take before nominating. They include "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.". It doesn't appear that this was done as the nominator only mentions the recent ANI discussion. Likewise, there's no coherent policy-based argument for deletion; just a vague WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It is obviously disruptive for repeat nominations to be made in such a hasty way as it wastes our time in repetition of the same issues and arguments. Fresh nominations require fresh reasoning or evidence. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then stick to that point, and leave "disruptive" out of it. Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IMPERFECT and per the SIGCOV WP:RSs. The nominator's rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, however we keep articles that meet out GNG. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are Smithsonian (magazine) [1], Nature (journal) [2] and Live Science [3]. Books on the topic have been published by educational publishers Capstone [4] and Scholastic [5], as well as others [6]. It's covered in the popular media like HuffPost [7]. Here's the The Spokesman-Review 1959 [8]. It's a notable topic, as notable as Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 or Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States. – Levivich 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three children's books, something from 1875, and two short pop pieces, and ... I'm not sure. I think there may be a real topic in here struggling to get out, but seriously, what will be the scientific sources? E Eng 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does science have to do with this? This is a pop culture article. But seriously, the point is that people have been comparing lions and tigers for a very long time. The full title of the article would probably be something like Comparison of lions and tigers or Comparisons of lions and tigers in human culture. – Levivich 20:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so now it's coming into focus. We still need modern sources other than children's books. If we were to TNT the article, what would be the starting sources for a new stub? E Eng 21:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For a stub I'd start with the Smithsonian (magazine) article [9]. This article from the Science Reporter might work as a second [10]. Live Science [11] is another possibility–perhaps not the most reliable source for science, but then this isn't exactly controversial medical, scientific, or BLP subject matter (the article's talk page debates notwithstanding). There are also sources that can be used to fill out various sections in the article. For example, biology. It's true the Nature (journal) article comparing lions and tigers that I linked to earlier [12] is from 1875, but they also published one about a genetic comparison in 2013 [13], and the article could discuss comparisons of lion and tiger vocal chords [14], population distribution [15], respiratory functions [16], digestion [17] [18], and everyone's favorite: urine [19] (which is from the Polish Journal of Ecology, so some of my wikifriends aren't allowed to discuss it). Other sections could be about lion and tigers in eastern and western cultures [20] [21] [22]; as a political metaphor, e.g. Britain/India [23] [24] [25], Sri Lanka [26] [27] [28], East/West [29] [30]; lion and tiger fighting in history [31] [32] [33]; in art, e.g. 2nd c. BC mosaic mentioned here [34], 18th century artist James Ward (artist) [35], 19th century artist Eugene Delacroix [36] [37] [38], and in literature [39]. And of course that's without getting into the indisputably-reliable sources such as [40] and [41]. BTW, the answer to "tiger vs lion" is tiger [42]. – Levivich 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are you prepared to provide a slightly-more-than-stub post-TNT replacement, under a coherent title? Because under the current title trouble will never end. E Eng 02:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I am so prepared, I created Lion Versus. More on the title below. Are you agreeing with Smithsonian, Science Reporter, and Live Science as sources for said slightly-more-than-stub? – Levivich 03:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about lion verses? E Eng 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to reserve judgment until the keepers have a chance to tell me what the eventual title of this thing should be -- a title that will actually tell us what the article is supposed to be about. Tiger_versus_lion is essentially meaningless. After a short section on their comparative physiology and so on, this article is mostly about legendary and accidental fights between these animals. E Eng 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EEng I think 'Tiger versus Lion' is a title to keep, because it obviously tells us its essentially comparing a lion and a tiger, and it is a simple iconic name everybody understands and knows. Tijkil (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my assessment has not changed since the last go-round. If something is covered to this extent through the ages, it passes WP:GNG. Contrary to what is stated above in some places, the bulk of the article (sections "Coexistence", "Observed fights", "Opinions", "Art") has little synthesis; these sources/people/artworks are commenting directly on the topic. We don't need academic papers to supply that material - children's books, something from 1875, and two short pop pieces are just fine. (In fact, the main WP:SYNTH offender is the "scientific" section (Physical and behavioral comparison) and IMO that would be a candidate for removal.)

I note that thankfully it's not been brought up in this nomination, but as per the previous ANI discussion, I suspect that several people are still being motivated by the lamentable attractiveness of this article for the... less competent editor demographic. Sorry, that sucks, but it's not the topic's fault that it is a magnet for fanboy wankery. We have tools to deal with that. Put in place some "Discretionary sanctions: Cat fights", if necessary... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DIscretionary sanctions aren't applicable to this one, not in the formal sense, and I'm not sure that anybody wants to take on the role of resident killjoy - apart from the problem with using administrative tools to effectively dictate content. I've done some blocking of obviously problematic editors, but there are limits. When I brought it up an ANI, it was primarily user conduct and OR that I was concerned with. I wasn't convinced that deletion was the answer, but some form of TNT (which can be a valid outcome of a deletion discussion if not made into a regular means of forcing change) may be useful. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the readdition to at least cut down on the bloat while this AfD is going on. I stayed out of this topic because of the situation you're describing awhile ago, but it seems like it's been getting worse and attracting more of the same with the WP:COATRACK issues. Maybe WP:TNT is the only way to stop the disruption behavior or content-wise short of ArbCom/DS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on coverage mentioned, this clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over 100 reliable sources listed on the article proves that the subject easily meets WP:GNG. I find this article and subject more sensible and familiar than a number of articles listed on main page right now. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cut down Part of the problem is that the name attracts misguided partisanship - we actually have editors on the talkpage accusing others of wanting to shoot all lions, and I've encountered editors in the past who have effectively adopted an "I like lions" or "tigers are the best" position and then proceeded to mess with the article and to abuse the talkpage. I think the topic, sadly, passes GNG, but it needs ruthless editing to cut out OR and hearsay sources. To get away from the whole Alien vs. Predator schtick, I'd suggest something anodyne along the lines of Tiger-lion comparison. It's a more accurate description of what the article ought to be, rather than implying that it's a running account of every time lions and tigers were pitted against each other, and which one lived through it. The present title can redirect to that. I'm not sure it will keep the morbidly curious from editing quite so enthusiastically, but it might help if we scale back the emphasis on which felid will kill the other in the title. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's at the right title. The fact that it garners attention kind of proves that. It doesn't improve the encyclopedia to move it to a less interesting title IMO. Most of the comparisons, outside of the field of biology, are about "who would win in a fight". In art, for example, it's lions and tigers fighting. In political science, it's used as a metaphor for two equally-fierce opponents. "Versus" is the most accurate preposition. But a title change and TNT should be discussed at the article's talk page and not at an AfD. Protection and blocks may be needed to quell disruption, but that's also not a matter for AfD. – Levivich 03:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A title change isn't a matter for AfD... unless the title is so vague it's impossible to tell what the article's really about, because without a clear topic there's no way to evaluate sources. E Eng 08:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to "pick and choose" any historical account involving lions and tigers, instead of focusing on any other animals the lions or tigers may have fought. The fact is, one could make such an article for a wide variety of animal combinations, but it doesn't make it any less WP:SYNTH._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compared for centuries and notable. Most animal pairs aren't compared by sources, this particular pair of the two largest cats is. Eostrix (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Levivich's sources clearly demonstrate the topic meets WP:N, and there's no argument presented here other than personal dislike of the article for deletion. Note it was advertised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tiger_versus_lion that this AfD would be started for reasons that amount to largely personal dislike among the editors. Wily D 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and the title should stay the same for now (per precedent of its last RM, should be changed only through an RM). ISUREDONTLIKEIT seems to guide the deletion reasoning here. When an established well-sourced page goes on the deletion block it should always be ushered off the stage quickly and handed a bus ticket home. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split I agree that the current title leaves the article scope unclear and is a magnet for Batman vs. Ninja Turtles–type cruft. I suggest splitting down the middle: Comparison of lions and tigers for the biology material and Lion–tiger fights for the historical and cultural-depiction material. (And cutting the "opinions" material altogether.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great idea. E Eng 20:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the split suggestion. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, lordy... may I note that the recent full-on re-bloating of the article by Andrew Davidson does it absolutely no favours. (That stuff was absent until today, Genericusername57) Now it's a synthesis fest all right. There was a reason that the previous resting place of that material, when split off, was deleted at AfD. Now most of it is back like a one-year-old zombie shambling out of the basement, pretty much destroying what tenous hold this article has on staying on topic. Actions like this really make me wonder if it's worth arguing for its continued existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article is...a jungle. Sure, it's a notable topic, but is that a reason to keep it? The article is something that is not something that should be kept in this encyclopedia because it is, at this stage at least, quite unsuitable for this project; does GNG justify unencyclopedic articles? | abequinn^fourteen 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/TNT Absurd amount of synthesis here. The entire Physical and behavioral comparison section needs to go. Just because you can juxtapose a citation about male lions being X size, a citation about female lions being Y size, a citation about male tigers being Z size, and a citation about female tigers being Q size does not mean this is a notable topic. I could imagine an article discussing lions and tigers living or fighting together, but such disconnected content merely makes this a WP:REFBOMB: the sources refer to each cat individually or with respect to the rest of the big cats too. Elephants and rhinoceroses both have ivory and thick skin, but just because you could make detailed comparisons between their sizes and behaviors does not mean it's an encyclopedic topic. Or hell, just makes List of felids ten times bigger because we can compare tigers and leopards or lions and cheetahs too (that's what many of the sources do)! A rename to perhaps Interaction between lions and tigers could work, but not the current state. As the AFD mentioned by Elmidae says, the physical comparison would be "a very limited merger" so Andrew D's addition of the entire thing here is inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right about Andrew D, as you're ignoring the references that do compare the 2 (which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but anyways, I said what I said above. Leo1pard (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am right that the AFD closed to be "a very limited merger", and I am right that the majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together. Yes there are some references that are about the two, but they do not warrant such a detailed, out-of-proportion section. It's not that hard to read Tiger#Characteristics and Lion#Description, this is absurd. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

138 references divided by 2 is 69, anything less than that cannot constitute a "majority", and anything more than that cannot amount to "some". Did you really go through all of the references before saying "majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together" or "there are some references that are about the two"? Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:42 and WP:SIGCOV. There's sentences and even sections that I'd edit out, but AfD is not the place, and I wouldn't blow it up. There's a silly element to it, but that's not really a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split per Gnu57. Make Tiger versus lion a dab between the two pages suggested by Gnu57, and Lion versus tiger and Tiger v lion and Lion v tiger and Tiger vs lion and Lion vs tiger as redirects to this dab. Fish+Karate 10:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split per gnu57. --JBL (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/partial merge to Lion and tiger interactions (Tiger and lion fights also would at least be an improvement). There's a lot to unpack here, and the community has had trouble dealing with the disruption associated with content in this area. In short, the main issue is WP:SYNTH, or more specifically WP:COATRACK the occurs with article bloating when editors try to fit in as much as possible that doesn't match with that is actually notable in the topic. A lot of fluff can be removed or prevented with a title refocus where if it isn't directly about the interaction between the two, it doesn't get in the article.

WP:TNT is very valid in this case despite those saying mistakenly saying AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. That doesn't look apt to happen right now though. One thing AfD can do to try to clean things up is change the title away from an unencyclopedic title of tiger vs. lion. That would help the scope and maybe stop some coatracking. Per previous AfD conversation, the physical comparison part (or what tends to happen is the article is a section about what lions look like, and one about tigers) is most subject to coatracking and should be very limited, so maybe that name change would help focus things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about spliting – Note that following the last AfD of this article in Jan 2018 (result: keep), the article was split to Physical comparison of tigers and lions in Feb 2018. That new article was nominated twice for AfD [43] [44]. The second time, the result was to merge/redirect it back to Tiger versus lion. You might say we're chasing our tails here. – Levivich 16:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before you make another pun like that I think it's only fair to warn you that I've served time in prison for manslaughter. E Eng 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what is the point of saying that you "served time in prison for manslaughter"? Another user here could have a tough mindset that allowed him / her to confront even those senior to himself / herself. Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is just joking around with me for making a pun. He gets a little jealous sometimes when my puns are better than his. Once, EEng made a pun that was so bad, an administrator actually blocked him for it. True story. The block was quickly overturned on appeal (I think because it was deemed to be a punitive block.) Anyway, serving time in prison for manslaughter just means EEng wasn't very good at it and got caught and convincted. I, on the other hand, have never served time in prison for kidnapping or torture. Your underlying point is entirely valid, of course: I am tough, and EEng is senior. – Levivich 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pun-ative block. Gotta remember that. E Eng 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see this discussion is being treated with all the seriousness it deserves. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did my homework and posted my serious contributions right at the beginning. Then I moved onto puns. Next, lolcat pictures. – Levivich 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone on the internet is difficult to judge, so to be clear: my previous comment is entirely in earnest, and is not meant to criticize or chastise anyone. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekanand Palavali[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a surgeon, author and filmmaker, not referenced to any hint of reliable source media coverage to verify that he has a credible notability claim at all. The attempted notability claims here are that he won an internal staff award from his own employer and that he's made films that have won unspecified film awards, but there's not a single reference supporting any of those claims -- there's just a bunch of his own self-publised primary sources getting linkfarmed under external links, which is not evidence of notability. Merely saying that somebody won just any random award that exists is not a free pass over WP:ANYBIO — some awards count as notability claims and some awards do not, so making a person notable for awards requires both (a) naming the award, and (b) supporting the claim with a reliable media source to demonstrate that the award itself is significant enough to make its winners notable for winning it. And otherwise, this is written more like somebody tried to convert his résumé into prose than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's almost impossible to source even a stub. There has been only a single local online article about him, zero newspaper articles, only two scholar articles, and nothing on JSTOR. For those reasons, he specifically fails the scholar test. I note that we almost always delete articles about producersl this doctor is not really a director as our readers would think - he self-produced a documentary. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GEOFEAT. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsenburg Factory[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search yields little more info than its existence and age; nothing describes it in detail. As none of the article's details can be substantiated, I recommend deletion as non-notable. ComplexRational (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The present article is a translation of the equivalent de.wikipedia article which I have now linked. I also added a couple of references, though I agree with the nominator that these do little more than confirm the age of the building. My "keep" opinion rests on its designation as a cultural monument (see [45]), though I am unfamiliar with the process for designating historic buildings in Germany so would be ok about changing that opinion if someone shows this to be a trivial status. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Heritage-listed building. It is true that Sachsen-Anhalt seems to list a lot of buildings (as can be seen from the large number in this small town alone) and I wouldn't advocate writing an article on every single listed house, but significant standalone buildings like this one are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. I agree with Necrothesp above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is Yellow the Middle of the Rainbow?[edit]

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

Can find no professional reviews or reliable media coverage about this film. Note that the present footnote #1 is about the real-life events that inspired the film, and some of the others are about festivals at which the film was played but with no precise commentary on the film itself. All that can be found otherwise are the typical retail listings and IMDB-like directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been discussed at length in scholarly articles such as Christopher Pavsek's "Kidlat Tahimik's 'Third World Projector'" (2013) and Patrick Campos' "Kidlat Tahimik and the Determination of a Native Filmmaker" (2015), with both authors regarding it as Tahimik's greatest work. Pavsek emphasized Kidlat's unique mode-of-production for the film ("cups of gas" filmmaking) and the spaces depicted in it in how they indicate Tahimik's perspective, while Campos honed in on its central themes of independence, identity, and what "third world" means, along with Tahimik's eventual focus on Ifugao culture being an actualization of his own cinema (the achievable freedom from neocolonialism). LionFosset (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found more reliable sources (BFI, Harvard Film Archive, TIFF & Time Out) Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - I must point out the "there must be sources" fallacy. The first commenter (LionFosset) listed professional journal articles but is wrong about "discussed at length." The first by Pavsek analyzes three other films by the same filmmaker, and the second by Campos only mentions this film once as an example of the filmmaker's work. So those sources are valid for the Kidlat Tahimik article but do little for this film article. Meanwhile, the second commenter (Espngeek) has added a new source that is also about the filmmaker and not the film, and added some sources that are about the festivals at which the film was played but again are not about the film itself. As the nominator I am willing to improve the film's article in light of sources that I may have missed at the time, but the folks in this discussion have only provided evidence of festival appearances and discussion of the filmmaker's larger career. There are sources that can improve Kidlat Tahimik but this particular film is the item of discussion here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, DOOMSDAYER520, though Campos mentioning the film "once" is a bit of a stretch, as he does focus on the film in his article (but yes, as an example of his cinema). Maybe you searched for "Why Is Yellow...", even though Campos refers to it more as "Bakit Dilaw" or "Bakit Yellow". LionFosset (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stumbled upon on this film (well, the director actually) mentioned in a book but sadly I forgot about the title and it was also a public library that I read during 2011. Was it written by his German wife? I am not so sure now so not much to contribute here though. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cairokee. Standard practice to redirect non-notable albums to the artist. No prejudice against restoration as an article if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Sekka Shemal[edit]

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

Album fails WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cairokee. The band are unquestionably notable, but apart from a primary source interview already included in the band's article [46] I'm not seeing anything in either English or Arabic that talks about this album in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkvision Song Contest 2019[edit]

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

Clearly this contest is not going to happen. The last edition took place in 2015 and the 2016 edition was 'postponed' and ever since this article has been renamed the following year. We now are four years since the last contest. There are no sources more recent than 2017 talking about this competition. There is no indication anywhere that the Turkvision Song Contest will ever re-emerge. So it is time to delete this article. Takk (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - sources ok. Part of Turkvision contest that has been deemed notable. Per WP:GNG. Also nom is faulty not formatted correctly.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It's part of something notable" is not a rationale for keeping as notability is not inherited. It is a rationale for, at best, merging into the parent article. There is no indication that the event meets WP:EVENTCRIT. If the event actually met GNG, there would be current RS that supported the notability of the 2019 event, not old ones pseudo-promising that it might happen one day. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Davenport (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The two current references are a directory entry and an award listing. The award doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found no significant coverage in reliable sources, only a namedrop in a book about pornography [47], plus brief pornographic film reviews/advertisements in the Bay Area Reporter[48][49][50] and an adult magazine[51]. (This is mainly trivial coverage along the lines of "Davenport appears in a scene".) Cheers, gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A laudable BEFORE. I had even less success in my search for reliable sources. Nothing here to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Servilia (mother of Brutus)#Television and film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Servilia of the Junii[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. One primary source and OR. TTN (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Servilia (mother of Brutus)#Television and film This is a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability of the character and coverage in secondary sources. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect per Susmuffin. Anon fails to point out which particular sources provide coverage, and I don't see anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Susmuffin. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Susmuffin. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HiVOLT[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable highly speculative proposal of dubious credibility. All sources are now deadlinks with the exception of http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/751746/posts which is nothing more than an internet forum. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have used the Wayback Machine to rescue the two dead references 1 and 2. I don't think these do enough to establish notability. I have found additional discussion here here and here, however I wouldn't qualify any of it as significant coverage. None of these or their referenced links offer much that we don't already have, aside from a self-written paper. Made the attempt to find coverage, but came up empty. hewhoam areismyself 15:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a mention in a book which seems to be about chemtrails and whatnot: https://books.google.no/books?id=uX9KDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT221&lpg=PT221 I do believe the HiVolt was a genuine idea at the time, but it does not really seem to be notable enough. Egil (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. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W!Games[edit]

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

Unnotable, now-defunct company. There are a few sources concerning the company (as seen in the present state of the article, and probably many duplicates of news items on other websites) but no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV exists. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Games[edit]

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

Unnotable, now-defunct company. There are a few sources concerning the company (as seen in the present state of the article, and probably many duplicates of news items on other websites) but no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV exists. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Darius Ishaku[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and no provision for inclusion in Wikipedia for spouse of elected persons in WP:POLITICIAN. Just being the wife of a notable politician does not establish notability. Since the husband of the said person has a Wikipedia article here, it should be included in the article and there's no need creating a separate article for her. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is not simply the spouse of someone who has a Wikipedia article, She is highly educated and is the founder and CEO of a NGO. IMHO, the focus should be if her work there is wiki worthy. I am not familiar enough with the subject to have an opinion on keep or delete but I strongly feel the discussion should focus on her accomplishments regardless of who her spouse is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anna Darius Ishaku is not just a wife of a notable politician, she is notable in her own lane as she is the founder of a Non-governmental organization "Hope Afresh Foundation", which is widely recognized in Nigeria. She is also a well educated Barrister and a member of the Nigerian Bar Association, and has held few appointments on her own even before becoming the wife of a governor, among which are; Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Kaduna State, Chancellor of Anglican Diocese Kaduna State. I will plead with you to kindly check her work "Hope Afresh Foundation" to see more insights on the discussed person.

Moshswacide (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moshswacide, Hope Afresh Foundation is a pure Taraba State government initiative and not necessarily the initiative of the governor's wife. It was created and operated from the Governor's wife office as soon as the tenure of the Governor started, as seen in 1 and 2. Until you convince me otherwise that she's really a notable figure, I don't find her passing either WP:GNG or WP:BIO just yet. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nnadigoodluck, Hope Afresh Foundation is not a Taraba State government initiative but purely her initiative. In Nigeria, a governor and his family are under the state government, as seen here 1. I will refer you to the foundation official website here 2. You will notice that everything on her here begins with Barr. Anna Darius Ishaku and not as the wife of the governor. And again here 3, as a Non-governmental organization, support from any legit source is acceptable, so any government can as well support the foundation. Even Toyin Saraki's foundation was financial supported by Kwara State government when her husband Bukola Saraki was the governor. My point is, this is a foundation founded by Anna Darius Ishaku, not by Taraba State government and this foundation will not stop functioning even at the end of this government.

Kind regards. Moshswacide (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Criteria per WP:GNG has not been met. W C M_email 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nominator, please read WP:WAW - women are whole complete humans. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A simple thorough WP:BEFORE would have saved us a whole lot time. Subject of article clearly scales through WP:GNG as she has significant coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search of the subject appears to show her being discussed in secondary sources independent of her. I found this and this. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khan (Nepali cricketer)[edit]

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

Cricket player who fails WP:NCRIC having played no major matches and no sigcov to pass WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied from talk page) This is a T20 match that he recently played against the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), and I believe it is a notable enough senior T20 match. [52] Sadbhav Adhikari (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This match is a friendly, and has not been awarded full T20 status, so does not meet the requirements at WP:NCRIC. The fuller explanation at WP:CRIN says or in any senior domestic competition or match Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not played any major matches so fails WP:NCRIC. Andrew Base (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:NCRIC.
Delete Agree with the nominator here as it fails WP:NCRIC by a long way. HawkAussie (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in any major matches and is therefore not famous. MA Javadi (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:NCRIC. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:FILMMAKER. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alhomoud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bader Alhomoud. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the sources of article, subject is notable as a filmmaker who won nationally and internationally awards in notable film festivals. Alibilbao (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides other sources of the article, I found Arabic sources about his films and awards but these 3 sources are directly talking about subject as a film director; [53], [54], [55]. Subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. صدیق صبري (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article has been deleted before. Now it has being re-created it still does not show that the subject of the article has been significantly discussed in reliable press, a WP:BEFORE shows subject fails basic WP:GNG woefully. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article was deleted one time in past, it's Not a reliable reason to delete this time! Because last time may be creator of that article, didn't provide reliable sources or enough content or the article was short and many other reasons. But this article was written about a award-winning film director that if you check the sources you perceive context is supported by solid sources in English and too many sources in Arabic. For film directors, awards and festivals are notable events in their professional career. In this case you can see awards and entries to film festivals. In my idea subject clearly passes WP:FILMMAKER. Mousafaeq (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:FILMMAKER, covering article by sources in Arabic and English as a award-winning filmmaker, subject meets GNG. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as identified above the film director has received significant coverage directly about him in multiple reliable sources so that WP:BASIC is passed and there is no need for deletion imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Per the above comments, notability has been established.مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ferns N Petals. After a re-list, no desire to Keep, and a consensus to Redirect to Ferns N Petals (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikaas Gutgutia[edit]

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

This page has been tagged since 2015 for COI and notability issues. The article was created by the BLP (per username). I do not believe this person is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. I think it should be merged with Ferns N Petals. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mostly about his company and I'm not seeing anything that establishes independent notability as per WP:BIO. There's nothing much to be merged except their collaboration with Tarun Tahiliani and JJ Valaya, but that is unsourced and not written from a natural point of view so, delete and redirect to Ferns N Petals would be a better option imo. GSS ^💬 07:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferns N Petals per GSS Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) IntoThinAir (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Mortensen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Three refs are simply genealogical sites which show that he existed but not that he was notable. The article also appears to conflate two people of the same name, one who was working in 1974 and one who died in 1866. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Have fixed the mixup of those two unrelated people. He is an adjunct professor and doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR, but he is included in the Great Danish Encyclopedia [56]. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the English-language equivalent of adjungeret professor is more honorary professor than adjunct professor. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article conflates two people named Peder Mortensen. Per nom, the one born in 1866 probably isn't notable – all I can find is genealogical references too. But the archaeologist meets WP:PROF#C1 (festschrift [57], widely held publications [58]), WP:PROF#C5 (honorary professor at Copenhagen [59] and formerly Director of Moesgaard Museum and the Danish Institute in Damascus), WP:PROF#C3 (member of the Royal Danish Academy [60]) and probably also the WP:GNG ([61][62][63][64][65]). So keep the article on him and cut the content about the other Mortensen. Full disclosure: his office is next to mine. So I can confirm he didn't die in 1866. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the unrelated genealogy cruft has been removed. Among the rationales listed above by Joe Roe, membership in the Royal Danish Academy makes the clearest case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I am content to withdraw the AfD nomination now that it is clearly about only one person with a more or less rational career path and with sources that appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of diagnoses from House (TV series)[edit]

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

For the most part, this list could also be named List of episode resolutions of House (TV series), and it appears to be a strange mix of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. We don't keep lists for CSI-like resolutions (Who was the murderer?), and I fail to see how House is different. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rare example of something that isn't only just non-notable, but for which it is virtually impossible for it to be notable. Whilst there certainly is coverage (though not necessarily significant coverage in reliable sources) of these diagnoses, this is already covered in the list of episodes and so this is just a duplication/fork. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN. Not only are the items not individually notable, but they have not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. ——SN 54129 12:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random trivia, and a pointless split when the episodes cover them anyway. TTN (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily passes WP:LISTN because there is, of course, detailed coverage such as The Medical Science of House, M.D. and The Most (And Least) Medically Accurate Episodes Of 'House, M.D.'. Claims that the topic is trivial are blatant prejudice contrary to core policy and are also false as these shows are used to teach medicine. Andrew D. (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete House (season 4), etc. already list the diagnoses with each episode. If you think it's relevant that a medical TV show teaches about medicine, a mere list of diagnoses is not how to do it! If you want to discuss how medically accurate the show is, a mere list of diagnoses is not how to do it! Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not this information is notable, the diagnoses are already covered in the articles for each season of House. As FOARP and Reywas92 already state, this article is simply WP:REDUNDANT. Tenpop421 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a fork of the results of each episode in the series. Completely WP:REDUNDANT and a trivial list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per FOARP, Serial Number 54129, and WP:REDUNDANT. aboideau^talk 14:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The individual articles on each season already cover this information, making this list redundant. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IT IS LUPUS- no it's never lupus. Except that one time that it was. Seriously though, delete because the diagnosis of this week's patient is already covered in the corresponding episode plot summary. Reyk _YO! 22:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not again. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Baranov (footballer)[edit]

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

Considering that the RPFL is now not a WP:FPL based league, this mean that this player is now not notable due to that reason.

I will also add these players due to the new system.

Aydar Khabibullin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roman Khibaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they still could be notable per WP:GNG, but we're nowhere close in all three instances. SportingFlyer T·C 10:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wait, I thought we agreed the third division wasn't fully pro, not the second division. Some of these players have played in the national second division, which I think would count toward WP:NFOOTY as the Russian leagues do receive some pretty comprehensive coverage? SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked it and all three do indeed have only played in the third tier of Russian football. I did have two other players on the list that survive due to playing in the tier above. HawkAussie (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation (and a check of a Russian-language stats site) you are correct - delete. I thought Khabibullin had played in the second division, but the team he played for wasn't in the second league at that time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Konstantin Baranov (footballer) - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage (this article about his marriage is not in-depth coverage of his footballing career) in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aydar Khabibullin - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage (just match reports, transfer announcements and database entries) in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Roman Khibaba - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage (just match reports, transfer announcements and database entries) in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guest host[edit]

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

This article was tagged for not citing any sources back in January 2009. If much-needed sources are added while avoiding the article becoming a pureWP:FANCRUFT & WP:JUNK article for several TV and radio programs, could the article avoid being deleted? Or would deletion either through the normal process or even going nuclear with WP:SPEEDY be right for this article? Pahiy (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article describes basic concept of guest hosting and several examples, and you can remove examples you think are too broad yourself. It definitely is nowhere deletion or TNT (and I'm going to tell you right now only the worst articles should be considered for TNT, not articles like this that just need some tweaks. Nate • (chatter) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion, though it needs improvement so have added tag for BLP references. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline King[edit]

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

This article feels more like a resume and not a Wikipedia article, As I said with Mary Scheer’s article, if deletion is not an option, I want to see solid evidence this article meets WP:NACTOR or even possibly WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh from there. Pahiy (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not in CV format. I have removed the tag. She has been a regular for 20-30 years on UK and is a recognisable tv character actor. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while there is scope to improve the article her regular TV series appearances such as her semi-regular role in Doctor Who would seem to me to suggest she is notable enough to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The trend of the discussion is Keep, but some indication of sources to support notability would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say her regular appearances in 55 Degrees North, Doctors and Doctor Who are enough for her to pass #1 of WP:ENT. There is also this source from the Radio Times about her role in Theresa v Boris (not extensive but more than a passing mention). WJ94 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but the subject looks notbale. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Night King[edit]

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

So... what makes this fictional character notable? Sure, GoT was very popular those last few years, but its characters still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. And there is very little about this one out there. Few mentions in passing, a good amount of episode summaries he appears in/fictional characters bios, but... I don't think that's enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 4 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} 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are a huge amount of online news articles about the Night King. Granted, a lot of it is just paraphrasing various interviews or speculation, but they are in reliable sources, showing it's a character of note and there are not just a "few mentions in passing". As a primary villain of the show, he seems like a strange choice to choose to delete first._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy keep. The character was the main protagonist in the series and as such appeared throughout the nearly decade long series. And there is SIGCOV. We keep these articles because they are a net positive for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on current sourcing provided in the article. It currently doesn't establish notability, and the assertion that sources exist is currently unproven. TTN (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I mentioned, WP:BEFORE fails to reveal anything that is not a biography summary (or speculation about his fate in some older sources). Fancruft/WP:PLOT and nothing else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I generally recommend to merge articles of recurring characters, but this article is in a pretty good shape that might pass as a WP:SPINOFF. It should be an editorial decision to merge this character (e.g. to List of Game of Thrones characters), and not be discussed at AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Night King has more WP:SIGCOV than many WP BLPs that pass AfD, including Harper's Bazzaar, Vanity Fair, the New York Times. I could go on and on and on. It would make no sense for WP not to have an article on one of the biggest villans of one of the biggest TV series in history. Withdraw this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this nomination an early April Fool's joke or something? A main antagonist in one of the most popular cable shows of all time as well as a best-selling booking series who has been made into action figures, etc. is notable by any rationale definition and the information is easily verifiable. Mainstream newspapers have articles explicitly about him, even such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/04/24/night-king-is-true-hero-game-thrones-so-maybe-we-should-all-be-rooting-him/ among many others. Not really sure how removing articles about these fictional characters really serves any useful or legitimate purpose anyway in what's supposed to be the largest encyclopedia in history. It's one thing if you're talking some unpublished work or something, but come on, really? --199.123.13.2 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrard Harrington[edit]

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

This seems to fail both WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:PROMO, and WP:GNG. He never even appeared in a game for Colorado due to injury as far as I can tell (searched sports-reference.com) and there's only one article on his business career I would categorise as non-promotional. It feels as if this article was created to highlight his (unfortunately, due to injuries) non-existent college career in order to promote the business side. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got several independent issues with this article. First problem: the sources either seem to be transactional/injury/statistics (which don't establish notability or "and finally" type articles (my opinion) that also don't establish notability. To me, that leads to a failure of WP:GNG and virtually any other notability standard. That is something that could be fixed if it exists and is found. Second problem: As written, the style and content of the article appear to be written as a promotion (violates policy WP:PROMO). Third problem: The sources for a lot of the information appear to be blog-type or fan-based, which doesn't really fit in line with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Fourth problem: Each of those (1-3) are independent on their own and reason to delete (fixing one leaves the other 2) but they also combine to problems with biographies of living persons, especially the verifiability. Those are my big concerns with this article as it is written.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 1,400-word feature story on Harrington from The Denver Post (here) plainly represents significant coverage in a reliable, independent source. That said, WP:GNG requires such coverage in multiple reliable sources. @Rosinant de Lamancha: If other examples of significant coverage are presented, I could be persuaded to change my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree on it failing WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:PROMO, and WP:GNG. The sources are transactional/injury-related due to the outcome of his career in Colorado. He never participated but he was on the roster, according to ([66]). Regarding the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, (here) and ([67]) are credible sources in the entertainment space. 2kxericthomas (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC) — 2kxericthomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- FYI -- Not participating but on the roster is exactly the reason the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting first few edits to the project as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - -- I am a native of Colorado and 40 year season ticket holder I have seen this kid play; he definitely pass WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoGirl79 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:IKNOWIT is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions because of subjective importance. That's not a reason that Wikipedia should consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - a couple of feel good stories in a local newspaper does not notability make. VViking_TalkEdits 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the subject does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:GNG. He would need one or the other and he has neither. Lightburst (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found sources from NFL players and celebrities talking about this guy's business career and athletic career. He definitely played at Colorado ([68]) and ([69]). This fits with [WP:NGRIDIRON]] WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoGirl79 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — CryptoGirl79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Wow this dude recruited Stefon Diggs, that is pretty impressive! (Proud Vikes fan YAYYY!!) ([70]). I do not think this is a promotional article WP:PROMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigWriterTicket46 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — BigWriterTicket46 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of CryptoGirl79 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Note to closer: All three "Keep" voters (2kxericthomas, CryptoGirl79, and BigWriterTicket46) are new users whose first and only edits relate to this AfD. Moreover, two of them have now been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. User talk:CryptoGirl79 and User talk:BigWriterTicket46. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that as a creator of the page, I probably have less weight in this discussion. Nevertheless, I’d like to mention a few important (in my humble opinion) things:

1) The former player appears on the Wikipedia page of his team as a defensive player because he had played a few games and had been a significant player before he was hurt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Colorado_Buffaloes_football_team

2) The nature of the sportspeople biographies indicates that their achievements are mostly mentioned during the description of the games along with the other players, which means they are mostly “mentioned”. This is exactly the reason why I found so many links but only 3-4 comprehensive articles.

3) Yet, Harrington still has for at least 2 comprehensive stories where he is told about in detail: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/07/19/former-cu-cornerback-and-current-student-moves-from-field-to-boardroom/ https://www.dailycamera.com/2012/08/13/football-cu-buffs-harrington-working-his-way-back/

I believe that it is possible to find 2-3 more sources in detail and I can try to do so.

4) Regarding promotional info: I haven’t found anything in particular but if you indicate what is promotional, I’m ready to remove it.

5) Generally speaking, I propose to cut and make this article “a stub” (if possible) and leave the most relevant references. If it becomes a stub, I’m ready to work on the article and improve it according to the reviewers suggestions in the coming 3-4 months. I just need more time for it as I have many other things to do in my life. This person’s career seems to be dynamic and evolving and to leave it is as “a stub” is probably a more constructive way to deal with it than to completely eliminating the page. Overall, I’m a rather new user here and these things discourage to do anything else after so much work.--Rosinant de Lamancha (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response - 1. He appears on the page because that is a list of everyone on the roster.

SeeWP:NCOLLATH

2 - this is the reason the individual needs significant coverage, as just being on the team does not indicate notability.

3 - I don't see multiple published, just the two and they seem more like fluff feel good local hero type and not significant coverage.

4 - I would need to re-read the article to determine if and where promotional is, and I don't want to do that right now so I won't be adding anything to that.

5 - I don't agree with making it a stub, as the individual does not seem to be notable based on Wikipedia's requirements so a stub would be inappropriate. VViking_TalkEdits 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two sources that are good (Denver Post and Daily Camera) and I agree that many sportsmen are mentioned during the games and less likely to have more comprehensive articles. It is the same with scientists or prominent doctors who can have a lot of publications but rarely get a comprehensive article.

I think that this article deserves to stay as a stub under condition that someone improves it. We have many stubs on Wikipedia with one source or even with no sources at all, yet they exist as stubs and can be expanded in the future. Deleting is always easier than creating but it is not always the best way to deal with new articles on Wikipedia.Vlahorba (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your fifth edit was to a socked AfD - hmmm... SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy indeed. Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. In fact, it is highly likely given the socking, the other article created by the author (Jesse Kay) and the quality of the keep voters here. I've blocked the author for WP:UPE. MER-C 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Sustainable Energy[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to be notable. Also, many different universities host similar organisations that have the same name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few local news sources mention it, but only to say the organization recognized a town. Not worth merging to Eastern Connecticut State University since it relies on primary sources adds nothing to the existing content there. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaunator[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Might consider soft delete by redirecting to List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons. It does have a reception here, so I am skipping prod stage, might as well make sure we have a consensus for any action here. Being listed on a kotaku list of 'strange D&D deities' is IMHO not sufficient to keeping this as a stand-alone articles, but perhaps some will feel different. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 11 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} 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and written in an in-universe, unencyclopedic style with a great deal of original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge as suggested above by nominator. BOZ (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Obviously, there needs to be a lot of article condensation and rewriting to make the D&D-religion article space anything like policy compliant. I don't think there's much of a chance for adequate citations for individual gods, but the bigger topics here have more independent attention than in some other fictional topic spaces. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article in its current form is a WP:POVFORK of the Satanic ritual abuse article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Violence[edit]

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

This article appears to be a POV-fork of Satanic ritual abuse, and the sources are mostly pushing a fringe viewpoint centered on discredited theories about repressed memories. I've found some passing mentions of the term "ritual violence" in anthropology, but I can't find enough material to assemble a decent stub. If that exists then that would be the logical basis for an article under this title. Nblund^talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does appear to be a strong similarity, but not all rituals are satanic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find good sources for other forms? It's possible that Satanic ritual abuse may need to be extended to cover other alleged forms of ritualized abuse, but claims of widespread ritual child abuse — Satanic or otherwise — are generally not considered credible. So what we have here is a standalone article discussing a minor variant on an urban myth. Nblund^talk 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the credibility argument convinces me. We are not talking about facts, but what people believe. Also We are not only talking about children, as the Report of the Ritual Abuse Task Force Los Angeles County Commission for Women source makes clear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "ritual abuse and mind control", which was produced by a group whose members later claimed to have been poisoned by Satanists? I don't think that should be cited, especially since the host url appears to be on the spam blacklist. The claims in that report are not substantially distinct from what we've already covered at the other article. We need credible sources that discuss this as a discrete claim.

Speaking of pov-forks, it looks like the main reason this page is titled Ritual Violence rather than Ritual abuse is that that redirect was indefinitely EC-protected to prevent...POV forks just like this one. Nblund^talk 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try this [[71]] or this [[72]], now it may well be cult rather than Satanic. But that then means we need to rename the other article before adding any material not about satanism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you presenting these as reliable sources? The SRA article already explains this: some advocates tried rebrand the idea using alternative terms like "sadistic ritual abuse", "ritual abuse" etc. but (as Mary de Young explains here) they were all essentially the same claims from the same groups under reworked titles. I don't see what more there is to say if you can't find sources that discuss this as a distinct phenomenon. Nblund^talk 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I am saying I am seeing enough to tell me this may in fact be a separate subject, that not all ritual, abuse is satanic.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you're proposing sounds like an argument for renaming Satanic ritual abuse to something broader. If we want to have a separate article on non-Satanic ritual violence, we need to provide reliable sources that discuss it as a distinct phenomenon. If those don't exist, then how are we supposed to have an article? Nblund^talk 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said explicilty that any merge must bbe based on the premise that the page is renamed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like in the past week an enormous amount of blatant nonsense has been removed from the article.
Right now a lot of the article is sourced to ra-info.org, which seems a little dubious to me, but they have a bibliography that might be helpful. ApLundell (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the latest changes are a definite improvement, it is still a POV Fork. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ritual Violence is a topic of scholarly interest (se, e.g., [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) but that's not what this article is about. The anthropological/sociological/psychological meaning of the term is completely absent, instead this is purely about a WP:FRINGE re-definition used to push the viewpoints of a very minority advocacy community. TD;DR version: Nblund and Guy Macon are right and this is a pure WP:POVFORK with no redeeming text to survive on its own. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:POV Fork. jps (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, per WP:POVFORK and WP:TNT (it reads as a personal reflection on the subject). Guy (help!) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Might consider soft delete by redirecting to List of human deities in Dungeons & Dragons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 11 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} 02:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge as suggested above by nominator. BOZ (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Obviously, there needs to be a lot of article condensation and rewriting to make the D&D-religion article space anything like policy compliant. I don't think there's much of a chance for adequate citations for individual gods, but the bigger topics here have more independent attention than in some other fictional topic spaces. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of recurring Futurama characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zapp Brannigan[edit]

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

No indication this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE reveals only mentions in passing and summaries of fictional character biography. The closest sources get to discussing his real world significance is a sentence or so in the vein 'a parody of Star Trek character'. That is not sufficient to warrant an independent article. Referenced content could be merged to List of Futurama characters, but let's face it, https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan is already better and any reader is better served going there than to our article/list anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 11 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} 02:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring Futurama characters. While various mentions in books can merit an entry in a list, he is not notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Christopher[edit]

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

Obviously meets neither WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment The interview without independent analysis in self-published zagsblog.com is a poor source for establishing notability, but there is an piece in The Atlantic that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.[78] --Worldbruce (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Atlantic article's good, but I think it's just a little WP:TOOSOON for Mr. Christopher. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Onel5969. No objection to putting this in draft to see if something more comes. Wm335td (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A high school basketball player; they therefore cannot meet the criteria for a notable college athlete for WP:NCOLLATH, and all of the WP:NBASKETBALL achievements are for college accomplishments Utopes (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify might be too soon now but will probably meet notability in a year. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and he definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS. He may well become notable but that requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see. Papaursa (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-nationalism[edit]

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

It is unclear that there are any reliable sources that discuss "anti-nationalism" as a general phenomenon beyond particular contexts. Therefore it is far from clear that the term "anti-nationalism" or "anti-nationalist" is being used to designate the same phenomenon -- or even a closely related set of phenomena - when it is being applied. Such ambiguity would be quite acceptable if there were reliable sources that discussed the nature of the construct, and the degree to which generalizations about it can be made. But when no such reliable sources exist, the mere existence of the article seems to be a standing invitation to engage in WP:SYNTH. The lack of RS's about the nature of the construct also renders the list of notable people who are all supposedly anti-nationalist virtually meaningless, except that each may have said something critical about nationalism in some sort of context, however circumscribed or minor, that once upon a time made someone describe them as "anti-nationalist". Pretending that Wikipedia can meaningfully put these people into a single category -- when we appear to lack the needed reliable sources -- would seem to be a standing invitation to engage in WP:SYNTH, if not an actual example of WP:SYNTH. Presearch (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a synth, in practice a concept without an extension irl that has survived as an article to this point. There is ofc opposition to nationalism and to the nation state and most of that will fall under international socialism but there are other currents, pan arabism, various religions, etc.. Additionally the article is justly tagged for being low quality. If it has any salvagable content merge to Bourgeois nationalism as criticism/opposition is suggested. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP's suggestion about potential mergers makes sense. If no one steps forward to defend the existence of this article in another week or two, then I anticipate that I'll do whatever merger looks sensible, and then put in a request for deletion. --Presearch (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable WP:SYNTH article that attempts to cobble together references to other things and make them support this term. In addition, there already is an article for ...sentiments associated with an opposition to the core sentiments of nationalism and related ideologies: Internationalism (politics). Oddly enough, this article links to the other already. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Euthanasia device. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide booth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This survived two AfDs 10 years ago when Google hits were sufficient. It is a mostly unreferenced list of this device appearances in various media (sometimes under different names). Real world discussion of it is rather sparse.A few mentions in passing. One recent book has a short chapter entitled 'suicide booth' but having read it I am afraid it is not an in-depth coverage of this; it is mostly focused on philosophy and just mentions Futurama's suicide's booth in passing as an example (and uses it for a 'cool' title). I see nothing else out there except few mentions in passing, and short descriptions mostly limited to lists of Futurama's gadgets. Perhaps a few referenced sentences could be merged to Euthanasia device where a section 'in popular culture' could be created, and it could be then soft deleted and redirected? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 11 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} 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Euthanasia device as WP:SYNTH. It would definitely make more sense as an "In fiction" section than its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Euthanasia device per nom and Zxcvbnm. Better start from the real-world equivalent and expand into sourced commentary on fictional elements, than start from a WP:SYNTH point (which it currently is). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Euthanasia device per the rational provided by the nominator. Utopes (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with a "redirect") to Euthanasia device, as above, when/if sources are found that cover this ie. an academic paper that discusses the correlation (if any) between these devices appearing in contemporary fiction and euthanasia debates rising in the wider community? than a standalone may be warranted, until than a "In fiction" section or somesuch is the way to go. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Euthanasia device per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Sunshine[edit]

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

She doesn't appear notable outside of appearing on Lil' Flip's song "Sunshine"; and it doesn't seem right to redirect the article to the song's article or to Flip's article. And the only apparent solo single she released doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If nothing more can be found than I could find online, then this article should be deleted. Only minor mentions exist. Bill Pollard (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rationale: The !votes to keep the article are greater both in number and strength; one editor suggested a merge, which gained insufficient traction for consensus, and the only voice calling for deletion other than the nominator did so unconvincingly. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism[edit]

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

Redundant and insufficiently notable. We already have an article called Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893). Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is obviously notable topic. It has got coverage in multiple books regarding Swami Vivekananda. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not sufficient for a notable event. The subject doesn't meet WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Though the Swami's contributions to the parliament as a whole may have some impact beyond India, I don't see this particular speech as having any such international impact, let alone a lasting international impact. All i see is a clear case of blatant WP:SOAPBOXING. Though I have already removed some unsourced content in the article, the problems remains that the subject is misleading in that it claims importance for merely a particular lecture given on one particular conference, with the only evidence of impact being four words in a Bengali scholar's book published by a religious organisation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Expanded.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment coverage in multiple books Only two of which are secondary, reliable sources, that is, King 2013 and Amore 1979. The rest of the references used in the article are all primary.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to be an important speach that is supported by WP:RS. I WP:AGF on the WP:V of the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions. There is very little non-primary source content that isn't already present in that article. The only sourced assertion of notability or influence comes from a publication by a foundation that exists to promote the work of Vivekananda's teacher Ramakrishna calling the speech 'historic'. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. Has at least 2 decent academic RS, & gets an avge 11 views a day, which isn't bad for a lecture from 1897, so I don't agree with the nom (which was foolish not to mention a merge). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which was foolish not to mention a merge @Johnbod: But you don't want a merge?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much mind. But there's a decent case for a merge rather than keep, and no case for a straight delete. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, then would you mind changing your vote to merge? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as Swami Vivekananda was one of the most famous spiritual leader/poet of India, and one of the greatest historical figures of the 20th century. This talk was one of the most historical event for the Indian diaspora, as the first person of Indian origin making a religious discourse in the US, let alone outside of India. However, I would suggest improving the article instead to articulate better for readers and users. Additionally, references or links could be included.Hari147 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. The premise is false. Make another page for tthe Swami. The title has it backward. Buddhism predates Hinduism. Buddha lived some 4,600 years ago, probably in the Indus Valley where a civilization arose which traded with the Sumerians across the western mountains. Hindu arose a few hundred years later, about 4,300 years ago. Hpfeil (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether his arguments in the lecture are correct is not at all relevant. And all modern historians use dates different to those by 2,000 years or so. Johnbod (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. University-level institutions are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added text and a reference to indicate that this Institute attained autonomous status in 2017. There is also recent news coverage concerning on-campus conflict [79] and concerns over performance [80], [81], but my opinion relies more on the UGC classification. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line/fictional race/character list. There are some reception bits about one particular character, but that seems covered by Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Regardless, it doesn't help with the general topic of this fictional race. TTN (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really sure where this could possibly be redirected, but it doesn't seem individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (transwiki). I think some content here is missing from https://transformers.fandom.com/wiki/Pretender so transwiki (copy) then delete. Fails WP:GNG otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers (toy line), which covers the subline with some detail. It's a valid search term, and redirects are cheap. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robot Masters[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, this is unreferenced so WP:TNT can also apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion WP:G5: created by a banned paid editing operation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Stewart[edit]

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

Notability concerns. No independent references, and WP:NSOLDIER is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:SOLDIER; reads like an attempt at WP:MEMORIAL.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search on Newspapers.com did not turn up any coverage of Stewart, not even an obituary. This looks like a run-of-the-mill US Air Force serviceman, who fails WP:NSOLDIER. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Senior NCO with a good service record. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thank him for his service, but NGOs are extremely common. He didn't win the Medal of Honor. There's nothing even to sketch his life. Just to be sure I looked online and found zero reliable sources about this person. It seems just to be a a memorial posted against our rules. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTSD-CA[edit]

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

Cheers! Central Time 301 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Central Time 301 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And your delete rationale is what? (I'm neutral, btw.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT The nominator fails to advance a rationale for deletion. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep At this point CentralTime, your nominations are completely disruptive. I must ask for an admin to step in here and restrict the nominator from pushing any more of these nominations which all easily pass WP:BROADCAST and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and which the nominator refuses to do any WP:BEFORE for. Stop wasting our time and resources! Nate • (chatter) 03:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hill Camp[edit]

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

Non-notable summer camp with no reliable sources. The article also fails WP:NPOV. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable camp WP:NEXIST in book, Money CNN, Description, Description Channel 16 news, Page six. Besides being a Jewish camp, it is also a wedding venue. New York Retreat Center WP:GEOFEAT Now if only we can add some of these and more refs to the article. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: None of these sources justify this camp for having its own article. WP:NEXIST needs reliable sourcing which none of these provided have. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1: Directory
Source 2: Trivial source about prices of camp (it is about how expensive camps are)
Source 3: Not even for the camp, its a city description
Source 4: SPS Directory
Source 5: Local news with no indication of notability for the article
Source 6: A former sports player visited the camp which is a common occurrence); I knew people who had Celebrities, Sports Players, and even government executives come to their schools, hospitals, and other locations. This does not indicate notability.
Source 7: A review site for a multi-purpose building. Any place can be a wedding venue from hotels, local parks, beaches, etc.
Source 8: Primary source.

In conclusion, none of these sources pass the WP:ORG policy. They are trivial and non-encyclopedic. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE was needed. That took me ten minutes. If I am feeling ambitious I will find more. We will see what other editors think. Not sure I have ever seen a summer camp/wedding venue with in depth biographical coverage. Maybe a prestigious person visited, like Alex Rodriguez. Or someone famous went to camp there, or was married there. That is why we have the SNG WP:GEOFEAT. The AfD rationale is that there are no refs but policy is not to delete when they exist per WP:NEXIST. I am not feeling ambitious right now, but will add refs when I can. Other editors can also evaluate the refs I have found, which are not exactly how you describe them. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The page is presently unreferenced; new sources cited here by Lightburst are trivial mentions. I am unable to locate actual write-ups of the camp by independent, secondary sources. Yoninah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page currently doesn't have any references as previously mentioned. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a delete rationale unless references do not exist out there in the world. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, according to the policy you cited the article needs suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article which the camp does not have. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I have been tied up in other issues today, but would like to continue to look this week if I am able. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dragonlance deities. Tone 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paladine[edit]

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

One of two surviving Dragonlance deities that didn't yet get merged to List of Dragonlance deities. This one has a reference to a Tolkien work, but as far as I can tell it's not an in-depth analysis. Still, figure it may be worth discussing this here, through I expect that merge and redirect is the only viable outcome given that there pretty much no in-depth sources, so this fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 3 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} 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - similar case with Ybarro, this character has a detailed section on List of Dragonlance deities and the majority of links on the "PANTHEON OF DRAGONLANCE" are re-directs to relevant sections. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 12:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dragonlance deities as per above. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dragonlance deities, though the aforementioned article (along with its companion List of Dragonlance locations has pretty much no chance of surviving AfD so it will likely be deleted anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dragonlance deities as per nomination. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dragonlance deities- There are essentially no reliable, secondary sources discussing the character in-depth. The few sources there are provide nothing but plot summaries with no analysis or discussion that would justify the character being independently notable to require an article separate from the one on the deities of the setting in general. Rorshacma (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Diversity of views but a lean to a Redirect or Merge to List of Dragonlance deities; try a re-list to get a final consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the last paragraph (because it is sourced and real-world) to List_of_Dragonlance_deities#Paladine. Otherwise, no need for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Poltorak[edit]

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

Not well-known. The article was created in 2005 and the last update that came an actual user and not a bot was in 2017. Don't know if any of the material would be salvageable for the Australian Sale Of The Century article. Pahiy (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Not well known" is not a rationale for deletion, and the time between edits does not make the article worthy of deletion. Articles can exist on relatively unknown topics. Utopes (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individuals are not notable just for winning television competitions.--Grahame (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nom says "the article is not well known, and hasn't been edited frequently. Nothing is salvagable." Which part do you agree with? Utopes (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Sale of the Century (Australian game show) winner and a question/script writer he has coverage spanning over a decade. Articles such as Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991), "QUIZ CHAMP SOLD ON SALE", Sydney Morning Herald and Cockington, James (17 June 1996), "Sold On The Sale", Sydney Morning Herald and Nicholson, Sarah (27 October 2005), "Master knows best", The Courier-Mail focus primarily on him. He was also before Sale a script writer, co writing the notable film Emoh Ruo. duffbeerforme (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme and Utopes. Bookscale (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning a game show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - did you read Duffbeerforme's comment? He has coverage spanning a decade and has notability outside of winning the game show. Bookscale (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Winning a game show doesn't make him notable. It's possible his work as a screenwriter does make hims notable, but the article does not discuss this work and therefore lacks a proper assertion of notability. Unless someone wants to rescue it by adding content, best to delete per WP:TNT.4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll repeat my comment above - have you read Duffbeerforme's comment? There are sources (on his scriptwriting) that exist and there are sources spanning a decade, the fact that they are not on the article (yet) does not make him not notable, notability is determined outside of the state of an article. It gets really frustrating sometimes when editors don't read other peoples' comments and misunderstand GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and did you read mine? This article could be speedy deleted because it lacks a credible assertion of notability in the text of the live article. We only keep articles where there is a credible text in the live article asserting notability. That text can be unreferenced, but it needs to be there. In other words its not a sourcing issue, but a much more basic issue of notability assertion.4meter4 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's complete nonsense that the article could be speedy deleted - how does it meet any of the relevant criteria, it quite clearly does not. Notability is not dependent on the status of the article (and whether the sources are there), it's dependent on there being sources at all (which there are). Bookscale (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone cold since re-list; try one more re-list to see if anything else emerges
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my keep. I guess I might not have fully elaborated on my vote. See Category:Game show contestants. Poltorak has a record winning streak for the Australian game show Sale, and held the record for the most money earned on a game show for that time in 1992, says the article and [82]. Now, there are 209 articles about game show contestants, and not all of them have one. IF somebody feels obligated to mass AfD these, go ahead. The presence of other similar articles is not my rationale for keeping mind anybody, but just a point to show that there are many articles about game show contestants that have been left alone. The problem here is that there are no set guidelines for "what makes a game show contestant" notable as far as I'm aware. The nearest solution is WP:ENT. Regardless, this person is a known contestant on a game show who has set various records for said show and earned a large amount of winnings. Utopes (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Utopes and they have notability as a script writer as well. Bookscale (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, and more of a lean towards keeping it, after much-extended time for discussion. Neither BLP concerns nor disruptive editing are concerns of weight to the question of encyclopedic notability. If disruption persists, the article may be edit-protected. BD2412 T 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Identity Foundation[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), because it has not been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Apparently it was active with 20 or so members in the 1970s, and has been mentioned in passing several times in news media. There are insufficient reliable sources to write an informative and neutral article. TFD (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N due to numerous secondary sources. The article is still a stub and we are in the process of building it out (as noted in early-October AfD attempt). No RS suggests "20 or so members" in the 1970s; on the contrary, RS suggest 1000+ members at that time, including notable politicians in the 1980s. Other WP articles reference this article. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samp4ngelesCan you point to a single article in a reliable secondary source about the foundation or any source that says they had 1,000 members? TFD (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was your own source for claiming (in the deletion rationale) that it was only "active with 20 or so members in the 1970s", and for implying that this was the maximum of its extension? And doesn't the article already cite a source claiming they had 1,000 members? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a response to TFD's unsubstantiated claim that the organization consisted of 20 or so members. As you have pointed out, that claims is refuted by multiple RS. In any case, a focus on the exact number of followers is a bit misguided given other notability. Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019

I was relying on a source used in the article, "About 20 straggly haired young people between 18 and perhaps 22 live in an old, green quonset hut." ("one man rules Haiku Krishnaites," The Honolulu Advertiser. 28 Jul 1970.) There are no other reliable sources that provide any indication of its membership. TFD (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Haiku Krishnaites and article you are referring to describe the very early days of Butler's following -- seven years before he even founded the Science of Identity Foundation. "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" (WP:AGE MATTERS), and Butler spent the last 40 years building the SIF. RS in the late 1970s and 1980s, through present day, suggest a much bigger and global network. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, I'm more and more confused by your argumentation here. Didn't you earlier argue yourself - eloquently and correctly - that a source published in 1970 can't be used for statement about a group founded in 1977? And contrary to what is implied by your above comment, the article currently cites a RS for the statement "In 1977, Butler estimated the group had 1,000 devotees throughout the world". If your argument is that you disagree with the RS in giving credence to that estimate, then state that directly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG handily. It is covered in an entry of Infobase's Encyclopedia of Hinduism which I just added to the article, and there is also the in-depth coverage of The New Yorker (2017) and Honolulu Magazine (2004).

As noted above, the nomination is based on a misleading claim about the organization's size, which also makes one wonder about the accuracy of its assertion that the coverage in the state's largest and (previously) second-largest newpapers - repeatedly over several decades - which is cited in the current article revision was only "in passing". TFD, have you actually verified that for all these offline/paywalled citations before making that claim? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also, several paragraphs in New York Magazine (2019). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saw this referenced in a Tulsi Gabbard RfC, which suggests to me that an AfD may be premature. Sourcing is not great. I suggest keeping it for now. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is being misused to perpetuate political and other disputes in violation of WP:BLPCOI. The material herein that is compliant with WP:BLP is already covered in ISKCON guru system#Siddhaswarupa. There will be no loss if this separate SIF article — which has been a magnet for defamation and dispute propagation — is deleted.

Sources including NYT^[1] and Hawaii Civil Beat^[2] have noted a concerted effort by a small group who seek to generate negative viral media attention to harm Chris Butler (founder of the SIF) and others who can be associated with the SIF (in particular, Mike Gabbard and Tulsi Gabbard).

The interlinked smear campaigns generated by these adversaries – widely available on the net and even repeated in tabloid 'human interest' pieces – range from incitement of racism and religious bigotry by 'othering' non-mainstream religious practices, to vague implications of sinister interconnections among people who follow those religious practices, to explicit allegations of criminal activity involving the CIA and Satanism.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Despite years of effort by the "cottage industry of researchers" (see NYT^[1]) dedicated to digging up dirt, all legal actions related to the smears have in fact gone in favor of the victims (damages, settlements, injunctions, and at least one restraining order). That has not stopped the smear activity, and now Wikipedia is being used as a grapevine broadcast vehicle contrary to WP:NOTSCANDAL.

Whether those inserting the inappropriate material are working in concert with the known adversaries or are merely picking up material from the web to use for disputes per their own biases, they are repeatedly failing to act in accord with WP policy. This hurts not only the victims of the smears, but it is wasteful of other editors' time and highly damaging to Wikipedia's status as a credible encyclopedia. Humanengr (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Lerer, Lisa (2019-10-12). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
^ ^a ^b "Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard". Honolulu Civil Beat. 2015-03-16. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
^ "Did Tulsi Gabbard's National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit?". www.honolulumagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
^ "Rama Ranson vs the cult". Rama Ranson vs the cult. Retrieved 2019-11-04.

Frankly your list of sourcing is dispositive on notability. If articles have BLP issues that is no concern here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N: “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." WP:NOT includes WP:NOTSCANDAL, cited above. Humanengr (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Coretheapple said, these wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article) are irrelevant here.

As for ISKCON guru system, that article would seem ill-suited as the main location for covering the present subject, considering that the organization was founded precisely as part of breaking away from that system (and has remained outside it for the last four decades). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB, re "wide-ranging accusations of alleged smear campaigns etc. (without any concrete reference to supposedly problematic content in this article)": There is documentary evidence of coordinated defamatory activity smearing Chris Butler and the SIF, which is then being used for political purposes against Tulsi and Mike Gabbard. Such material can be provided if the admin here requests it, but it goes beyond the scope of this discussion. To provide just one example of improper use of the WP SIF article for continuation of disputes, harm to individuals, and scandalmongering, see this edit removing inadequately sourced inflammatory claims regarding islamophobic and homophobic statements attributed to Butler from over a decade ago. Inclusion of this cited source in the references, "Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard's Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings – Can she Still Run for President?", is sufficient to show that the goal is political rather than encyclopedic. Humanengr (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tulsi Gabbard; similar to WP:BLP1E, this group seems to be a GRP1P (i.e. a group notable for 1 person). I can find almost no references for the group that don't mention them in relation to Gabbard. They don't seem to have any direct coverage in RS. Seems like a merge to me.... NickCT (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Encyclopedia of Hinduism reference doesn't mention Tulsi Gabbard, and while I haven't reviewed them myself, we can be pretty certain (considering her age) that neither do the newspaper articles from the 1970s and 1980s that are currently cited in the article. What's more, even if it was correct that the only aspects of the topic that were ever covered concerned its relation to Gabbard, considering the breadth of this coverage alone (multiple independent RS over several years), that would still merit a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got passing mention in the "Encyclopedia" of Hinduism, then a few articles from local Honolulu press from the 70's and 80's? Seems like thin gruel if you ask me. Is there any non-local coverage from the past decade that doesn't mention Gabbard? NickCT (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a city name in a newspaper's name does not mean it is "local"; The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin were the largest and second-largest newspaper in the entire state. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry is not trivial coverage. And regarding the wealth of other sources, you still haven't explained why "source mentions Gabbard" means "article must merged into the Gabbard article". (I do agree that it should contain a summary of those aspects that are most relevant to her biography.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the "good" sources (i.e. the national sources from the past decade) all cover this group in relation to Gabbard, clearly suggests that the group is only notable b/c of Gabbard; hence a merge seems appropriate.

The EoH entry strikes me as very trivial. You didn't answer my question about coverage from the past decade. NickCT (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: My concern is that the article is a magnet for vandalism. One solution is to leaving it IF the separate SIF article can be locked to neutral factual content appropriate under WP policies. There have not been ANY events by SIF that warrant updating of the WP content since the profile was first included in the ISKCON article in 2010. There is no reason for continuous editing of the SIF article other than adding inflammatory elaborations to continue disputes and harm reputations for political purposes. Editors should not be burdened with chasing edits that violate WP:NOT. Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr: you already !voted above, so please strikethrough your vote here so that you don't confuse whoever closes the discussion. I think WP:EASYTARGET is relevant here: if editors violate neutrality guidelines, we deal with that through other means. Deletion discussions are about the notability of an article topic. Nblund^talk 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Yorker and NYMag have all run lengthy articles about SiF. Although those are more focused on Gabbard, Stuff magazine which is based in New Zealand (where SiF currently operates) has covered the group without discussing her. The Hawaiian press (1, 2) have been discussing SiF in Hawaii for decades. The Hawaii Advertiser (paywalled, but reproduced here) ran a series on Butler's growing political influence all the way back in 1977. Much of this would be undue at Tulsi Gabbard, and covering it at ISKCON_guru_system would be inappropriate because they aren't part of that system. Nblund^talk 17:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nblund: - Stuff Magazine?? Well I guess WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? :-) Sorry. Could help an inappropriate policy reference. I guess Stuff Magazine is moderat-ish RS that doesn't discuss the group in relation to Gabbard. The group still seems to skirt the line when it comes to notability. NickCT (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: I admit I also find the name a bit off-putting, but it appears they operate a good chunk of the respected print media outlets in New Zealand, and the story appears well-reported. I guess it's not any worse of a name than Buzzfeed. Nblund^talk 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff.conz are cited 11,889 times @en.wp. The author is claimed (§) to be the news editor of a Stuff-related tabloid (§) called Sunday News. The correction and apology note at the bottom of the article shows they have editors. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nblund and SashiRolls: - For the record, I'm not saying it's not a RS. Just that it's not the highest quality RS. After all, who trusts a Kiwi?

Regardless, this group still doesn't have a huge amount of non-local or recent and non-Gabbard-related coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Doyle (actor)[edit]

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

~~I don't think this actor meets WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN and WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)~~ - User has been site banned by Arbcom. (This may or may not change the final result based on consensus already established so far)[reply]

Tentative Keep. I understand the argument for deletion, but its always better to err on the side of caution in these cases. While the significant number of wiki-type sources on him aren't necessarily the standard for reliability, the number I found with just an initial search does indicate his impact. I think any voice actor, no matter how marginal the audience, with 26 roles over 24 works can be justified an appropriate subject for an article to keep. I guess it's open to discussion, though. ƒin (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is the WP:SIGCOV on the actor in question? Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criterion for WP:ENT based off his lead role in Eureka Seven, Cyborg 009, Zenki, and other roles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic from Eureka Seven is a main supporting role at best..... Renton is the main character of E7. Just naming a bunch of titles isn't notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Dominic" at the List of Eureka Seven episodes shows they were in a lot of episodes and seem to be a significant character. Dream Focus 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tanda is one of the main characters of Moribito, and they also did the main character for Zenki. The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. Dream Focus 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is the coverage for said roles? Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Don't need coverage to confirm these are notable roles. Someone who got coverage for a minor appearance wouldn't be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER but would be under the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually no reliable sources to establish notability aside from ANN. All the ANN pieces are critical of Doyle's work, but not included in the article. Esw01407 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT and roles Lord Roem pointed out. Rab V (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reception for Doyle shows he has at least two major roles that were critically reviewed but with a minor sentence or two that doesn't really explain his career, so I can't count it as significant coverage. I just can't find any background on this person beyond that, so even if the critiques are added, it is likely to end up as a WP:PERMASTUB. It wouldn't be missed if it were deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permastub is just an essay, a personal opinion not supported by enough people to become a guideline, so meaningless in any deletion discussion. WP:NOTABILITY is the guideline that determines things, and it says an article must meet the General Notability Guidelines, OR the subject specific guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER, never had to meet both since then the subject specific ones wouldn't have a reason to exist. Dream Focus 02:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:ENT. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am with Angus on this one when it comes to the available sources. WP:SIGCOV falls under WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:ENT is listed under "Additional criteria". What is the use of having a biography about a living person without the proper sources? It goes against WP:BLP in terms of potential WP:HARM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created independently of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blackgate Penitentiary[edit]

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

Another Batman-related fictional location that appears in a lot of media, but fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION since there is nothing about it outside of the occasional primary-source description. Not sure if there is a valid merge target... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 3 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} 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. The most mention it gets is in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia, a primary source. It gets little mention in secondary sources, not enough to pass GNG. It's Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wp:imperfect and wp:PERX. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. TTN (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectably recommend you to quit saying that per WP:NOTNOTABLE. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the topic has no non-primary sources, that is a sufficient summary for deletion. In response to below, the comic space is full of thousands of non-notable articles, and nobody wants to do anything with them. If projects or communities actually cared, then this would be unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know about you but we have been merging countless articles. Granted there is more Marvel fictional stuff than DC that gets looked on to get merged. But it is not fair to say we are not doing anything. I bet I can find a lot of sources for this article at least in name-drop. But I am focusing on sandbox edits related to Superman more than finding articles to save. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must have merged some 50-100 Marvel super minor characters several years ago, and more than half were undone in the interim. I'm sure merging happens, but it's not at great enough of a rate that it helps with the overarching problem. It also doesn't help that there are several holdover users who really should just move to Fandom or another wiki. It's not like there aren't hundreds of notable characters and topics between DC and Marvel, but there are thousands more that have been sitting and will continue to sit without action. TTN (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wp:imperfect This is getting ridiculous. This is a major location from the Batman mythos. Just because notability isn’t proven doesn’t meant it’s not. Getting tired of the same editors voting delete on related stuff they they don’t like it. This is coming from someone who likes to merge constantly when he don’t feel it’s notable. Next time why don’t tag the actual editors /WikiProjecters who likes to fix these articles . I hardly noticed these AFD if it wasn’t for a certain concern about other articles being deleted regarding the same users. Also one AFD at a time would be nice so we don’t have to multitask. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not the best argument. Please find some to share with us As for no time to merge, this can be just tagged with 'to be merged per AfD' and left until someone finds the time to merge. It's not like we need to burn it right away. All that said, what do you want to merge and where? This is pure WP:PLOT and 'appeared in those media' list. We just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Chemicals as delete/redirect, and I see not a single source suggesting this location is more notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I am busy with another article and a sandbox. I guess you foiled me as I am not as concerned with this article than the other ones for now. I wish this AFD purge would calm down though. I was editing an sandbox and then suddenly I am trying to save some articles. It’s stressing. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: No need to get stressed. This can always be soft deleted by redirecting to List of locations of the DC Universe (probably a better result than outright normal delete). You or any other interested editor can merge it in due time, or even restore it if you find sufficient sources for that. It is just that so far nobody has found a single source suggesting this can be more than WP:PLOT. Hence, delete, or soft delete & redurect, seem like the policy-justified choices. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not stressed on this AFD. Stressed one a different one where I tried my best to prove GNG. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. It's a valid search term, and we have some information on it. Adding its first appearance and creators would be a nice touch. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. @Jhenderson777: is right about his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there’s no valid rationale here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. No evidence of independent notability warranting it’s own spinout article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe as a valid search term. Currently nothing but in-universe info and plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), and trivial appearance information. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources means nothing worth preserving. Straightforward failure of WP:GNG--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a distinct lack of any kind of information in reliable, secondary sources that goes beyond simple plot summary or trivial mentions, thus failing the WP:GNG. And, as stated by Killer Moff, the utter lack of material sourced to reliable sources means there is nothing to preserve. The proposed List of locations of the DC Universe is, itself, just a mess of non-notable cruft, so redirecting there would be rather pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Lazareff[edit]

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

Most of the references are about the death of her son. The ones about her are either promotional interviews or notices about an award she founded. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A speedy deletion attempt was contested, so it would be best to get a consensus on this rather than soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage related to prizes, her litigants in person campaign, and her campaign to make it easier to track relatives abroad is (just) enough to save this article in my view. Particularly, this is a WP:BASIC pass based on at least the following references: 1 2 3. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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