< 12 November	14 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 delete. Noting too the comment that there is copyvio content also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cox[edit]

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

Non-notable bit player. IMDB knoweth him not. That's next level obscurity. Guy (help!) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google-generated translation of the Chinese Wiki article seems to indicate that his notoriety stems from being a contestant on a Chinese televised talent show (assumably similar to "America's Got Talent"). The Chinese page offers no help in improving this article, as while it does detail Barry's small list of minor roles in Chinese TV series, it still consists of mostly pointless information about who manages Barry's Facebook account and who Barry has a crush on (no joke). It should probably be deleted too.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable bit player. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO as it is close to a G11 speedy deletion which isn't surprising considering it's a 60% copyvio of his facebook page so could be eligible for G12 as well , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like pure WP:PROMO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Popstar' my left buttock. The article is promotional. I was unable to find news mentions of him in a quick search, which pretty much disprove the first line. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried to find more information and, well, even if he were notable an article would probably have to start from the beginning rather than build on this text which has more interest in embellishing the truth than neutrally writing about the subject. /Julle (talk) 23:42, 20 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cities in Morocco and Western Sahara[edit]

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

Very unusual region. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This oddity dates all the way back to 2005, and was obviously an early effort to deal with the political circumstances regarding territorial claims on Western Sahara. At this point, it's... not a disambiguation page, not really a set list article, not linked from anywhere in project space, and not really the way we handle this sort of thing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In January of 2006 the content was put into two articles and this article just turned into a link to those two articles.[1]. Nothing links here but two redirect pages, List of cities in Morocco and Western Sahara List of Cities in Morocco and Western Sahara which should also be deleted. Dream Focus 22:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real navigational purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe snow. A search on "Lists of cities in Morocco and Western Sahara" shows this article first, then List of cities in Morocco followed by List of cities in Western Sahara. After deletion, a reader who searches on the term may get to one of the target lists faster than they would now. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what purpose a list of 2 lists serves. Oculi (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I will assume good faith but your thoughts might differ. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no true purpose to this list now Taewangkorea (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't know what the use of this list is when the two pages already exist. Alex-h (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needs history merge up to this version. Peter James (talk) 22:00, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph J. Figy[edit]

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

City Councilor of a city with a population of 40K. Has not received significant coverage in independent sources and no coverage outside of the local paper. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable mayor of a tiny city. This individual is in no way notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately Wikipedia's bar is higher than this. Geschichte (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mayor of a smaller (pop. c. 42,000) city in the Springfield, Massachusetts area, so there's no automatic notability. He doesn't pass my standards anyway. I don't see how he passes WP:GNG or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no automatic notability for a mayor for a small city. Local paper coverage appears to be WP:MILL Taewangkorea (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Westfield MA is not large enough to hand all of its mayors a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because they exist. The actual notability bar for mayors, even in larger cities, is the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive article about their work in politics, not just the ability to find some information about their private personal lives and then supplement that with technical verification of their election or selection as mayor. But six of the eleven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the five that are media coverage are all routine local coverage of the type that every mayor of everywhere can always show, not enough in volume or depth or range to make him a special case over and above other mayors. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable acting mayor of a tiny city. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:34, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Napoleon[edit]

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

Subject not notable, article improperly sourced with no further available sources found. Google returns mostly e-commerce results for his book. Article itself appears promotional, with many citations to Napoleon's own writing that do not correspond to the content of the article in any meaningful way. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be meaningful amount of RS out there about the subject. Many of the sources for the article are from things written by the subject of the article, and the content derived from them doesn't really contribute anything to the article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minimal impact on discipline so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There has not been sufficient reliable sources that deal with the subject significantly. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Article looks promotional. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah I'm not finding much at all in the way of coverage here. Some reviews of a book of his, but those are not inherited. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:16, 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 keep. Default keep since the consensus is not to delete. A merge is possible, but can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 16:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Family (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet my minimum standards for notability within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Outsiders (comics)#Enemies --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. See CBR, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable enough being in a DC comic to be kept. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia defines notability. See WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outsiders (comics)#Enemies, where they are already covered. The sources regarding these characters does not go much beyond basic plot summary - even the source mentioned by Andrew here is just a plot summary, first of their debut comic, and then of the episode of Titans they appeared in. Rorshacma (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I find that this is notable, but if it is to merge, merge withwith Outsiders (comics)#Enemies WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Outsiders (comics)#Enemies.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to Delete, but not clear on Keep vs. Merge; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:08, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing particularly notable about devils and demons in D&D compared to other media. A crufty article that is almost entirely primary sourced, except for a one sentence mention about religious groups being angry over the use of the term "devils". Re: The previous AfD, it was nothing besides a pile-on of WP:ITSIMPORTANT "keep" votes without substance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to excuse what this article looks like now. As I've said in other recent D&D AFDs, the entire topic space is basically showing the ugliness of shifting project attitudes about fiction and sourcing, combined with up to a decade of deferred maintenance. But while there are quite a few (okay, many) D&D creature articles destined for deletion or merger, some are legitimately notable. This? Almost certainly one of those. There are quite a few sources discussing the involvement of the D&D devils in the roleplaying game industry moral panic, including coverage of then-TSR's decision to expunge them (only to bring them back later). There's a little of that sourced currently, some more hiding out over in Dungeons & Dragons controversies, and more in print sources not currently being cited (Shadis #7–8, etc.). Furthermore, there's discussion of D&D's devils in reliable sources in other contexts. In particular, Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Read and Gain Advantage on All Wisdom Checks (ISBN 978-1-118-39762-6; and, yes, I know it's a silly title, but it's a Wiley-Blackwell published philosophy book) dedicates literally pages to discussing the structure of D&D's Nine Hells, the devils thereof, and how such entities might inform our philosophical examination of free will. More sources are all but certain; I'm really just digging into the nearly 50 years of literature on D&D topics in an effort to re-source and rewrite our coverage of this topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Are you sure that it's the "Devil" creature type that is notable then, and not Baator? Because from what you said, it seems that Baator is the potentially notable article here, given the structure of the Nine Hells is discussed. Are Devils really independently notable enough to have an article separate from that, and for both things to have their own article?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, the quick answer here is that I don't know. The D&D topic space has a lot of duplication right now. If we have a source discussing the philosophical underpinning of D&D's devils, does that support an article on the devils, or on their plane? It... depends on the sources. Maybe both? Maybe not. In the last decade, no one has systematically tried to organize, condense, and properly source this stuff, and access to sources doesn't make it easier. Offhand, personally? I'd guess that the D&D devil is a notable topic, with the plane itself mentioned in context and in some sort of Cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons article that doesn't actually exist yet. In part, that's because the moral panic component of coverage was absolutely about the devils and not their origin plane (which wasn't even really written yet). Anyway, I'm sure we could randomly merge this article to that one, or vice versa, but that doesn't make the job of actually improving the encyclopedia any easier. It's just more work once I've got the sources all lined up to write from. Oh, and just because, here's another relevant one: Littman, Greg (2014). "Sympathy for the devils". The Philosophers' Magazine (65): 46–53. doi:10.5840/tpm20146548., which is also probably going to contribute substantially to the fundamental rewrite that needs to happen over at Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). That was a lot of words to say that I really can't speak to the ultimate fate of this article title, much less its contents... but that deletion really isn't the answer here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userification is also an option if the article's sources would be helpful in a possible rewrite. All I know is, the current article has been non-notable since 2006. For all we know, it will get rewritten in 2029. In the meantime, it's clearly unencyclopedic in its current state. I have no opposition to putting it in userspace, a draft or what have you._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Squeamish Ossifrage, and also noting that we have the review in White Dwarf magazine, and the "Season of the Witch" book as a place to start for sources, worst case scenario would be a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters rather than deletion. Also, noting that two respondents in the previous AFD identified additional sources for this topic. BOZ (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Squeamish Ossifrage and BOZ - The article is adequately sourced and IMHO the subject here meets GNG. Also keep as per the previous AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete: make into a disambig. Squeamish Ossifrage makes an interesting point about connection to Dungeons & Dragons controversies, but the article as written has not even one sentence alluding a connection. And if its sole claim to fame, as argued above, is said connection, then we don't need a POVFORK. This could become a disambig to said controversy, and the whatever list of D&D monsters mentions it, probably the one mentioned by BOZ above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the arguments/potential sources brought forth by Squeamish Ossifrage and BOZ. -- Daranios (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Devils of Dungeons and Dragon specifically were an important part of the moral panic surrounding the game.^[1]^[2]. Thus additional specificity beyond the 'controversies' article is extremely helpful to readers. Also, as Squeamish Ossifrage's perspective is a strong one regarding articles in this Wikiproject. Anyone have Playing at the World? It probably can contribute to the debates in this recent flurry of D&D deletions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. It could use a refresh to bring it in line with current article standards but as others have mentioned devils are directly connected to the moral panic around the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:42, 14 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]

Keep, per Squeamish Ossifrage. /Julle (talk) 23:45, 20 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 08:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Motors[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has a previous removed WP:PROD, so soft deletion isn't an option; giving this another shot at input for a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few references to the article. There are more to be found. I find that there is some notability and so therefore I !vote keep. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This article can be improved. VF9 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Closing admin should observe that added sources are not WP:RS. Störm (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, none of the references are good. I've checked for additional good sources but I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of 19 November 2019, this article has The Express Tribune (newspaper), Asianet News and (3) other improved references. Today I updated and gave new references and before me (3) references were given by Wm335td above on 13 November 2019.Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV per the following sources including two peer reviewed journal articles:

Bartos, Frank (April 2003). Direct-Drive Linear Motion Lives!. Vol. 50(4). p. 34. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)
Motoman - palletizing in the freezer. Vol. 30(6). December 1, 2003. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)
UK keen to up trade links with Pakistan. June 15, 2012. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Deputy high commissioner says UK committed to building trade ties with Pakistan. June 14, 2012. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Saeedi, Tariq. HASCOL CHAIRMAN TALKS ABOUT BALOCHISTAN'S ENERGY POTENTIAL. p. 19-20. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Mckie, David (May 24, 1995). Democracy can spare a few mediocre MPs. p. 15. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Vasilash, Gary (November 1995). The first look: Motoman pushes the envelope of robot development. Vol. 107(11. p. 35. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 21 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 08:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest House[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning by user Gaming4JC in 2012 was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals... Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. This rationale still stands today, as a quick search in 2019 shows other organizations under this name, but not this one. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~(see below) This isn't my usual area, but I found this reliable source which says it "grew into one of the top five Christian publishers in North America by 2000". Chubbles (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Here is another mention from a reliable source, though more of a passing mention. It's always hard to search Google Books for coverage of publishers, since most results are the books they publish. There are couple hundred GNews results for "Harvest House publishers", including the significant coverage Chubbles mentioned. St Anselm (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Harvest House Publishers, but keep article. A publisher that can manage 160 books per year ought to be notable, with a lot of their authors having WP articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 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) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable publisher. No unsponsored non-trivial coverage could be located. For instance I added a useless publisherweekly ref to the article and little else could be found. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the source found by StAnselm is a passing mention. If anyone finds any secondary non-trivial coverage ping me and I will reconsider. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Forbes named Harvest House "among the leaders in the field" of Christian publishing, and they get routinely covered by Publishers Weekly. (Amusing side note: they're putting out Carson Wentz's children's book.) They're noteworthy enough for inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Publisher's weekly seems entirely unreliable. I have run into it before when discussing non notable authors and publishers. For instance. Harvest House pays them to get featured content. Look at the top of this article which says "Sponsored by Harvest House Publishers". The Forbes is barely a passing mention without even so much as a comment about Harvest House. And the Carson Wentz book is actually a book written by Zach Ertz, who is a football player, not an author. If that is what we have to go on, this company is not notable at all. Wm335td (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers Weekly is a reliable source used in thousands of articles but like even The New York Times they include some sponsored content which is the case here so it is not a reliable source in this instance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atlantic306. Yes, it is hard to have editorial integrity when you are paid by a company include an article which looks to boost their notability. So I proceed with caution. Wm335td (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Atlantic306 mentions may be sponsored, but it isn't included in the trio that I posted, which, as far as I can tell, all appear to be independent journalism. That strikes me as similar to something like Billboard in music - they have some sponsored articles, but also independent journalism, and the presence of one should not obviate the other, even for entities that do pay for sponsorship. (I think this is pretty common in music, in fact - Alternative Press, for instance, used to have tons of ads for Victory Records and Rise Records, including some that sort of looked like articles and were identified as ads. But the magazine also reviewed their albums independently, and those reviews would have been valid for establishing notability.) The Eugene Register article I found seems to have been overlooked in this discussion, and when Forbes says you're a heavy hitter, even in a passing mention...I think that is a pretty clear indication of something. (Mind that the house has been in operation for 45 years; some of the coverage of it in its heyday may be offline.) Chubbles (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the sources supplied by Chubbles, more are probably available offline but there is enough for a reprieve from deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 21 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 Planets of the Hainish Cycle#Gethen. Tone 08:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gethen[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, although I'm not entirely convinced what the best target is. Planets of the Hainish Cycle is an obvious choice, but quite frankly, that's probably just waiting its turn for TTN to nominate it for deletion. That leaves me divided whether the best target would be Hainish Cycle (the article about the setting in general) or The Left Hand of Darkness (the work in which this particular setting element is most significant). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hainish Cycle, where this fictional element can be better covered with WP:DUEWEIGHT. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as unlike many other Planets of the Hainish Cycle (which, as Squeamish Ossifrage predicted, has also been sent to AfD), Gethen figures prominently in multiple works. However, I freely admit my bias in this regard, having chosen Gethen as my last name based on The Left Hand of Darkness, so would not oppose a redirect, preferably to that book (which is a featured article) rather than to Hainish Cycle. Funcrunch (talk) 14:24, 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) 19:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability (no non-primary sources). Not a very plausible search term, but my redirect choice if any would be to The Left Hand of Darkness. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are three non-primary sources cited: The Guardian, The New Yorker, and Slate. Funcrunch (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Planets of the Hainish Cycle#Gethen. Goustien (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Planets of the Hainish Cycle#Gethen. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 21 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 consensus to delete has emerged after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations on corruption scandals involving Joko Widodo[edit]

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

The user who made it has a non-neutral POV on Joko Widodo, as he made clear in this Wikiquote edit. See also its history on enwiki and idwiki. Flix11 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negative BLPs should be avoided. I don't see any reason to keep such articles. Kaweendra (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge into Joko Widodo, not a significant enough figure to merit a separate article on this topic, particularly with the tertiary nature of the "allegations" listed. bd2412 T 17:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No desire as yet to Keep, but not clear whether this material should be deleted or smerged; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm usually an advocate of merging or redirecting marginal articles, things are a bit different for negative content in the BLP topic space. The title here is hopelessly non-neutral, and the Wikiquote edit posted above strongly suggests intentional bias by the article editor. I'd view this as a tainted well; it's more trouble to ensure balance and check proper source use for anything that could be marginally salvaged from here. Better to cull entirely and let the main article develop (with due weight) any controversies that are reliably reported (much of this isn't, including an investigation that was dropped before trial, etc.). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. This article is beyond hope. VF9 (talk) 22:28, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Michelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4, for reasons that I admit I'm not entirely sure about. None of the core issues from the first AfD are addressed in this recreation; being born, living, and dying is not notable, and there's no other content besides that (irrelevant filler material about her theater-going habits and similar notwithstanding). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify an article. No improvement from the previous version of this article which was deleted. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blade forget to mention the When she reached age 110, Michelson received a letter of congratulations from Barack Obama, the President of the United States, for achieving the status of supercentenarian filler. E Eng 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and my reasoning in the first AfD. This woman is clearly not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I hate to rain on her parade, but I am not sure that she will notice. Living to such an age is truly wonderful.....but just not notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G4. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:12, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Bature Ogbeifun[edit]

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

Article claims subject is a musical artist and pastor but does not pass WP:SINGER or WP:RELPEOPLE a WP:BEFORE shows subject does not meet up to basic WP:GNG standards. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Subject clearly fails WP:BASIC. Mahveotm (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. In any case, the line "that is popularly known in" makes me cringe. I assume a well-meaning fan wrote this essay. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SINGER. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:14, 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 Don't delete. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no consensus found as between keep and merge. Clearly, deletion is not the outcome, so we do not need to carry on this discussion further. If editors wish to consider merging, they can discuss on Talk:BaoFeng UV-5R or just do it. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BaoFeng UV-5R[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Our policies discourage making pages that are highly specific on products that are not exceptionally notable. This product doesn't seem to have a sufficient significant coverage with a sufficient audience base. It looks to be sources are highly focused to specific niche audience.WP:GNG WP:PRODUCT. The page is extremely specific and narrowly focused, sources are not what we'd call large audience reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT. non-notable generic radio transceiver. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Graywalls, it has only been a few weeks since it was last at Afd. I would suggest informing everybody who took part in the Afd as per policy. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify the significant contributor/creator to the article. Graywalls (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are a relatively new editor and scope_creep has nearly a decade and a half of experience on WP. I recommend you take their sensible advice. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA, Scope creep, ChrisWar666, Mark viking, Rhododendrites, AnUnnamedUser, EvilxFish, Lightburst, and Reywas92: To those who participated in BaoFeng UV-5R AfD. I am notifying all who participated as I was requested by antoher editor Graywalls (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, it does not make sense to propose it again less than two weeks after the previous (relisted!) AfD was closed. To summarize the previous discussion: three sources pass the requirements for significance, reliability and in-dependency. Also, it does not fail WP:Product per "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.". It is a notable transceiver radio that is sold widely and is mentioned in multiple articles of community projects on for example Hackaday. This particular model has thousands of reviews just on Amazon for a single listing, it has been sold through different channels (especially Chinese web shops). This model is also the base of a lot of other transceivers under different brands. Also, it is notable on the Slovak WP where it has been published for few years. This model democratized the field of amateur radio by being very low-priced compared to everything that was available before. Also, the amateur radio community is already quite a niche. The sources are pretty good compared to the other articles in its own category. Initramfs (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator, I didn't notice it listed the first time around. "Also, the amateur radio community is already quite a niche." that's a pretty good hint that it doesn't belong here. A product intended for and only of interest to a specific target would be a reason for failing the WP:AUD. Trivial coverage such as a person interviewed by the local media recommending the product does not contribute towards notability. WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NORG are relevant guidelines. The standards for notability are higher for organizations and products, because "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." to quote the guideline. KOHLER Sous Pro-Style faucet has 1,500 reviews just on Home Depot, but that sort of thing is not a supporting evidence of product notability. Hopefully this clarifies why I have nominated it for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't notice it listed the first time around.", Okay, that can happen! But I think WP itself is a collection of niches, most articles aren't that interesting for a large audience. Within the global radio amateur community, this is quite a notable device. It got significant in several articles on Hackaday, which is a reliable independent source. The device did significantly contributed to the growth of the amateur radio community in recent years. I know Reddit is not a RS, but as you can see, an entire community is built around this device: [2] Initramfs (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~What I did find is EVIDENCE OF WP:CANVASSING with the intentions of affecting the AfD result. Discovered~~thanks to the link you provided, what I did find are posts on three subreddits announcing of your previous AfD during the time AfD was taking place r/Baofeng, and r/HamRadio. The response I have seen at [3] irked me. (comment updated) Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Graywalls:, I don't think you found canvassing. if you read what was actually written, init asked for WP:RS, not to enter this discussion. Unfortunately the recipients don't know about WP:N, but that's moot as init has accepted a compromise. I'd say more strike-throughs are in order here, coz we should WP:AGF (and this was for the last AfD anyway). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The last AfD was closed less than two weeks ago, do we really need to do this again? - ZLEA _T\^C 13:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize at the time it had been nominated not long ago. I didn't notice the article when it was going through the first AfD. I do see that nutshell essay encourages waiting two months. I'll keep that in mind going forward, but this shouldn't be a reason to summarily speedy keep. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even thought the last close was no consensus keep. WP:DELAFD My comments have not changed from two weeks ago. Passes WP:Product a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed in the 9 days between these two AfD discussions, so I will re-iterate my earlier recommendation: The ARRL, FCC and Hackaday sources are independent RS and there seems enough depth for WP:GNG and a modest article. In particular, the FCC is primary, but authoritative for their own sanction, and the sanction is about selling the UV-5R. I consider Hackaday a reliable source for maker/hacking topics--there is some editorial oversight, and their content is usually solid. Cheap and controversial, the UV-5R has had more impact than most transceivers. Reasonable people can disagree, but given my knowledge of the amateur radio field, the topic seems a modest keep. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FCC isn't a source that is applicable in establishing notability. They regularly produce press releases about who got busted, not unlike police departments releasing their pinch in press release. It is a reliable source of the fact it happened. Graywalls (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep My opinion hasn't changed since I last commented and it is way too soon for a second AfD. --mikeu ^talk 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Eh. Still clearly fails WP:PRODUCT (per what I said last time). Not sure why this has attracted special attention such that we're keeping something based on such poor coverage, but here we are... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per the arguments below. It's already covered on Wikipedia, so no point deleting. Content to defer to editors of that list page for what should be included there... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any change since last time, and I still maintain that the primary FCC doc does not mention this product by name, only the manufacturer. Hackaday being a 'community blog' project still worries me, although Mark Viking's assurances it is more reliable than others are reassuring. The last AfD was quite recent, but there was no consensus, so here we (shouldn't really) go again. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the FCC document, that is not true. It is mentioned 6 times. Initramfs (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs: could you please point me to where in the 4 page FCC document, linked from our article, that states the product by name? The company is only mentioned once, in a footnote to "Violators may be subject to substantial monetary penalties.3", along with what appears to be 3 other example companies. My apologies, I probably should have noted something on the article itself, instead of the (last) AfD discussion only. Live and learn :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666: Ah, I now see what you mean, you're referring to the 6th source, I'm referring to the document that was linked from the 1st source, the ARRL. This document is 6 pages and mentions the device from page 2 and onward. I hope this clears the confusion :) Initramfs (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs: Something tells me we should link to that document from our article, not the other. Perhaps the article name should also be changed to "UV-5R series"? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666: Hmm I do think it makes sense to keep referring to that document. Although it's not explicily mentioned that is is about the UV-5R, the document from the previous month only mentions radios from that series. I do agree with your second statement, but I think we should discuss that later if the page will be kept. Initramfs (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I have no idea about amateur radio, but is there a page for the kind of radio this is, where we can merge this article as a section in that one? Or a page for the FCC decision? I guess it might be easier to get WP:RS for either of those two and maybe have a bigger page? As my biggest problem with this article is that it's one product (it would seem almost like wikipedia endorsing it) and I'm sure there are many other examples we could join together so we don't unduly focus on just this. @Initramfs: any ideas? Other editors? Would that be more acceptable? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666: Looking at Category:Amateur radio transceivers, there are some more amateur radio transceivers with their own page. They are all high end so they aren't candidates for a merge. I would argue this particular BaoFeng radio (series) is definitely notable due to its use in projects and the FCC controversy, other amateur radio transceivers didn't generate as much controversy as this one because they complied to the regulations. I disagree that it looks like Wikipedia is endorsing this radio, because it is mentioned very clearly the radio is not legal. Initramfs (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs:, having a look through those articles, I'd say they all have exactly the same problems as this (perhaps even less notable for most): no WP:SIGCOV, not really WP:NOTABLE, and some of those Yaesu articles are completely unsourced (when there are sources for many in this cat, they are blogs, forum posts, youtube vids. Not exactly WP:RS.) Also, most of them are really too detailed for a general information encyclopedia, I'm not wanting to beat on the amateur radio community, but there was a similar AfD for a list of AD&D 2e monsters. Probably interesting for the community, and definitely in a published book, but just so much unnecessary detail for the average reader (I'm not sure what happened, but it looked like deletion when I read through it). Would something similar to List of QRP Transceivers be possible? I'm unfamiliar with terminology and such, but that looks much more useful than several short WP:STUBS? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666: @Graywalls: Okay, I agree. I created List of Amateur Radio Transceivers which currently only contains the UV-5R but I will try to add more radios later. The current BaoFeng UV-5R page can be made into a redirect, IMO. Initramfs (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs:. Perfect, compromise achieved! Striking through and changing my vote as well :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nobody's feeling Baofeng is getting singled out, the contents at some of the Yaesu articles I have visited are not a role model of contents. I have cleared out things that really shouldn't be there in the ones I have visited. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWar666:, delete and merge into walkie-talkie or Two-way radio is possible option, so there can be a few sentences briefly saying there was this this importer who got cited by the FCC for the UV-5R fad. I am of the position this shouldn't have its own article, just as you wouldn't create an article on an individual citing a news paper article and a police press release saying so and so got a speeding ticket. Those are reliable sources of the events having happened, NOT that what happened is notable. FCC issues citations all the time for non-compliant products. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging into the generic articles about walkie-talkies because this radio transceiver is notable on its own, due to reasons explained earlier. A whole range of Yaesu radios are deemed notable with their own articles without mentions of projects and controversy, so that makes this the most notable radio listed on Wikipedia (apart from historical radios). Initramfs (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I change my vote as the article author, I would like to make the article a redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers#UV-5R Initramfs (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done that man, or women. It is really struggling to establish notability after this discussion. It is worth noting even Yaesu, though notable and in existence for more than sixty years is struggling to find good quality references. I suspect the field itself is not particularly notable nor replete with useful sources, which reflects badly on WP itself, if the article was left. I think the whole lot needs looked at. For example, it is worth examining Yaesu VX series. Originally all the VX kit were originally perseverate articles, then Afd and consensus was to merge them. There is more examples of that. I don't think there is any kind of page consensus outside this article. They are all merged, or will merge as a series in the future, as the consensus dictates.scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs:, I see you've already copied over the contents to the target you chose. Since the contents are already transferred over, I'd say delete and redirect would work out. Please strike-out whichever entry you're not using as to eliminate confusion. Simply wrap around the obsolete input around <s> what you want to delete </s> to strike out. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Done. Initramfs (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Initramfs:, um you struck out in the wrong part. I meant you should strike out the obsolete vote/entry in this AfD discussion, so you're not double voting. Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Sorry, I misunderstood. I added the strike-trough to my previous opinion. Initramfs (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negative on delete, it needs to stay as a merge. WP:CWW - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers#UV-5R as per above discussion (and many more articles of doubtful notability could get merged in, too). I believe this should be an acceptable outcome for all involved :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I think that ultimately the best thing may be to merge and redirect to List_of_Amateur_Radio_Transceivers#UV-5R if and only if much of the content here can be merged there. But I am not a fan of rerunning a WP process repeatedly until it gets the result the nominator wants, even when the repeat was done in good faith as it was here. Maybe there's someone out there dreaming up ways to save this article. Give them some time to do it. Vadder (talk) 19:04, 20 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 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AI and ENVIRONMENT[edit]

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

The article is lacking content to ascertain the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fundamentally, this is original research like an essay in list form. It's an effort to take a handful of AI or robotics events with some vague connection to environmental science and present them as a coherent timeline. Regardless of whether there's some notable core concept here or not, this isn't the way to approach it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wm335td (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to not delete anytime soon; the deletion notice should be given time to encourage the authors, and others, to improve the page; my view is that it serves as a shell for an important topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbpark2 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NUKEIT. The topic appears notable, but the article must be entirely rewritten – as prose – utilizing sources describing the relationship between AI and the environment. In its current state, the article is a list of scattered events that does not indicate why these events are especially notable or should be included together in a list; it almost exemplifies WP:NOTDIR as listings without context. This is also not the correct title because of its capitalization, so even if the article is not deleted, at least this title should be. ComplexRational (talk) 01:42, 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 delete. Tone 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Label series[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line/list of toys TTN (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a transforming robot horse in this race. I suspect this sub-line of toys isn't independently notable, but it was also a Japanese exclusive release, so ideally we'd check Japanese media before shuffling this off; I have no idea where to look for that, and don't read Japanese. But let's set that aside for the moment and talk ATD. I'm fairly sure that everyone can agree that the Transformers toys, writ large, are a notable topic, even notwithstanding the terrible shape our article space is in. In my mind, that means we should have a merge/redirect target list that would include this line. I don't know whether that's ideally a List of Transformers toy lines that just addresses them on the product-line level or a List of Transformers toys that's more detailed. Some of these decisions require editorial judgment in a field that I've done no source examination of, and am not qualified to opine about. But I am qualified to state: that's one of the reasons why we have lists for the member components of notable categories (but for which not all the individual elements are themselves notable). Technically, I guess that's currently at Transformers (toy line)#Transformers toylines, but that's a sad dog of an embedded list. I know there are interested editors in the topic area; surely we can do better? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, as with a lot of these franchises, this whole set of articles needs a mountain-full of TNT and a weedwacker applied to any notable topic. You'd need a dedicated specialist from the ground-up to get anywhere with the current set of articles. The references are full of fan sites. The articles cater to the hardcore fan. The formatting of most of the articles, especially the fictional characters, is absolutely atrocious. I don't think there is any benefit to saving any of the current content. TTN (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I think, more than anything, that's where we philosophically disagree. Neither of us want "articles" (using the term rather loosely, to be honest) that look like this. I tend to think this sort of thing makes it easier for future editors to determine what needs to be indexed and sourced; you would prefer we pave it over and start from scratch. I'm... not sure that either of those approaches actually gets compliant article copy written, sadly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This entire article is referenced by a fan forum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear fail of WP:GNG, not notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:58, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Killick[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement, and a rather bizarre accusation. Does not meet WP:GNG, and her positions and citation counts don't appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Sources from Google Scholar:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cmi.12161

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-12-611

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00422/full

The GNGs are just that, guidelines. The subject of this article has received over 150 citations from her work, I would consider this notable significant coverage from reliable sources, as seen above.

I would like the nominator to explain how they landed on this page? Women in Red is an important opportunity for the Wiki community. I doubt very much that this article would be nominated for deletion if the subject was male. comment added by Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs)

The editor of: Cell Signaling in Host–Pathogen Interactions: The Host Point of View, Diana Bahia independtly acknowledged Dr Killick for contributions to this work, this further supports notability.Schlossbergfes (talk

This article featured in the Irish Times involved Dr Killick and her colleagues fight for more funding for the sciences.^[3] Schlossbergfes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that our wiki-notability guidelines are not "binding". But in fact, the guideline for judging notability of scientists and scholars was invented precisely because we did not want to judge scientists and celebrities in the same way. Many scientists do important work but don't appear on TV, or get glossy profiles in magazines, or even have much biographical information available at all. The Wikipedia community recognized that we'd have a better encyclopedia if we could write about these people. On the whole, this is good for marginalized groups. For example, it means that we only have to deal with the sexism in the scientific community itself, rather than further penalizing women scientists by only having articles on them when they clear the even higher barriers of gaining widespread public recognition. We delete biographies of male academics all the time, and an article on a man with the same publication record would almost certainly be deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Haberman, Clyde (2016-04-17). "When Dungeons & Dragons Set Off a 'Moral Panic'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-14.
^ Brooke, James; Times, Special To the New York (1985-08-22). "A Suicide Spurs Town to Debate Nature of a Game". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-14.
^ https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/funding-basic-research-in-science-1.2142827

Delete. Citation count is light for WP:NPROF C1, and I don't find anything meeting other criteria -- at the very least, it's WP:TOOSOON. Originator of the article seems to be mistaken about notability requirements, saying in the history "author is published, clearly passing the criteria for an article". And 150 citations wouldn't be enough in math (an especially low citation field), let alone biology. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three Google Scholar sources posted above are just links to the paper. The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. On another note, and this may not belong here, I do not appreciate User:Schlossbergfes accusations that this is part of some sexist conspiracy to remove women from Wikipedia. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a mention of conspiracy, you are planting that word to discredit my points. You are using guidelines, that are not binding, to hold a scientist to the same criteria you hold celebrities when it comes to perceived 'status' and 'notability' and it is despicable.

Unless you can find a threshold with an exact number, 150 citations are notable. This meets Criteria 1, and must remain as an article. Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that the editors for removal read the article Gender Bias on Wikipedia.Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Russ Woodroofe. I think part of the problem here is that WP:NPROF criterion 1 is (perhaps intentionally) vague. People could easily read "significant impact" different ways. To clarify the community thinking on the criterion, the "specific criteria notes" note that significant impact typically means "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". That threshold is not met here. As Russ Woodroofe noted, it's too soon for an article on this topic. Ajpolino (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, fails WP:NPROF. I agree it looks to be WP:TOOSOON. If there are articles on male scientists of a similar early career stage, they should be nominated for deletion. The creating editor seems to misunderstand the level of notability required for academics - just being published is not enough. PamD 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pace WP:BIAS. The current sourcng is all primary. Like Darth guy above, a WP:BEFORE search found no third party, independent reliable coverage demonstrating notability. WP:TOOSOON clearly applies: the chances of an ECR with three papers uder their belt being independently notable in their field is phenonomnally unlikely (although I grant not impossible, and not perennially).
Disclosure: Arguably, I was brought here by Schlossbergfes's WP:CANVASing :) ——SN 54129 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can put as many back to back adjectives in front of your threshold, but as long as there is a number in concrete, it can subjectively be viewed as being met. In an environment where your editors are extremely, highly, superduperly male, it gives more weight to the female articles who actually pass the test. It is my opinion that 150 associations for a female scientist is meeting the C1 criteria. Schlossbergfes (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article has been active for months and was not taken down, I'm questioning the timing of this deletion request. Just because other articles may not be added to Wikipedia, doesn't mean that this one shouldn't. One must use critical thinking, not notable guidelines.Dafteire (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err. Unfortunately the criteria for keeping articles on the English wiipedia is...the notability guideines, not "critical thinking". An unfortunate state of affairs, perhaps, but there it is. ——SN54129 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No you're right, why would we use critical thinking, silly me.Dafteire (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're right, the artice will be kept. ——SN 54129 19:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes new articles just don't get noticed. Or nobody who sees them wants to go through the trouble of starting a deletion discussion. That in and of itself isn't an argument for keeping them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the article has been viewed 164 times, while not a large sum, it should be noted that over a hundred views before it was flagged. Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but there is a level of prestige to the works listed, and the removal argument is only citing standardisation as their logic.Dafteire (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dafteire: If you look at the history, the first deletion request was done as part of page curation, in which Onel5969 is very active: there is a substantial backlog in reviewing these new pages created by less experienced editors, and I think that probably explains the timing. They will have been working through the list - their other recent nominations for deletion were Ahman Pategi, Brandon Parrish, Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, Ashland Skate Park - 3 men and a skate park. PamD 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF and WP:TOOSOON. She has respectable citation counts for a postdoc, but postdocs (and assistant professors and the UK/Irish equivalents) are usually too early in their career to have attracted enough attention to their works for academic notability, and Killick does not appear to be an exception to this general rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start but far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. I note that there has been canvassing for this AfD, which drew my attention to it: I otherwise might not have noticed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As others have set out in detail, fails WP:NPROF. Another case of WP:TOOSOON. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the editor who will most likely remove this article from Wikipedia: you are silencing a scientist because of notability. Science has no room for celebrity; furthermore, their research is not art, but fact. The lowly 'deletists' above are vultures that never had the chance to actually make a difference in life, and as such, are altering the course of fact. Please know, as soon as you click this page out of existence, you are smothering true discovery. I hope you feel shame for you sexist suffocation.Dafteire (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Strike dupe vote by Drafteire.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Many of us are active in creating and expanding articles about women in science, and no one here has any grudge or animus against Dr. Killick. We simply have looked at the available documentation and concluded that it is too soon to write an article about her. We would say the same about a man with the same publication record. As explained above, this has nothing to do with "celebrity"; indeed, we work against "celebrity culture" by writing about women who have earned professional esteem as scientists without receiving the kind of media attention that men almost certainly obtain more easily. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPROF. Spleodrach (talk) 17:15, 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 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Ellyson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: None of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable, external sources. I looked for new ones and found only a plot summary of a reality show[4], a paragraph in a Houston Press gossip column[5], and some tabloid dating rumours. Cheers, gnu 57 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hangover from the salad days of WP:PORNBIO; but now that's gone, this article fails the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO, with insufficient coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources. ——SN 54129 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have come to realize that one pornographic magazine giving a rotating monthly designation to someone is not a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 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 08:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Man (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fictional topic. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really so hard to simply comment on topics you're actually interested in putting a good faith effort to save? There's being an inclusionist, and then there's being someone who simply ignores that Wikipedia has some standards. TTN (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comment isn’t much better. Just saying not notable based on your opinion is very irritating and is just deletionist logic IMO. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it's completely obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Wikipedia's standards, there's little need for any elaboration. His comment, on the other hand, has no justification unless backed up by sources. There's a difference between being curt and being a contrarian to try to snub somebody who is correct. TTN (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making detailed responses and rescue work at AfD is hard. I spent a couple of hours yesterday doing this for just one AfD – a literally thankless task. By dint of patient research and painstaking editing, I've turned that one around but there are too many AfDs each day to do this for lots of them. Now, in this case, the nominator has used Twinkle to punch out a nomination using exactly the same identical text as other nominations. There's no evidence that they have even read the article, let alone followed all the detailed steps and searches required of the nominator by WP:BEFORE. The nominator should be aware that such repetitive, attritional behaviour is disruptive because they have previously been sanctioned by Arbcom for using "repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." Twinkle doesn't provide any button-pushing short cuts to help those who would defend Wikipedia's content. In this case, I made some searches to confirm that there are sources out there and so the topic has reasonable prospects, given time and effort. Listing the results would take time and effort too but, in recent cases, those who wish to destroy our content just refuse to look at such sources or dismiss them out of hand. So, to avoid wasting time and energy, it seems best to respond to the nomination in kind, per WP:SAUCE and WP:CHOICE. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per usual, bunch of evasive nonsense that does nothing to back up your position. The fact that you label using AfDs to cut down failing content as "destroy" speaks volumes as to why you're so completely disingenuous on nearly every AfD. You're a joke, and I don't care if that is taken as a PA. TTN (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another way to take that comment? Just curious. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, the onus is on the nominator to make the case for deletion. A vague wave at a guideline without any policy, evidence or specifics is inadequate. I have done enough to establish that the nomination's contention is false. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You're such a diehard inclusionist that you don't care what you defend or how you defend it. You refuse to even discuss things on the same playing field, so you jump to irrelevant talking points and nonsensical sources. You're mocked by pretty much everyone in this space. It shouldn't be hard to have a civil back and forth on the validity of sources, but your entire modus operandi is based on the idea that those who want to clean up this space so good topics can flourish are inherently destructive. If you want to see why the removal of content is a good thing, go look at the video game and anime/manga character categories. I had looked through there the other day, but nearly every article is properly sourced from what I could see. That would have been near impossible ten years ago when those categories were so overpopulated by absolute cruft. TTN (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. A major crime Lord alias from Spider-Man comics. Too major just to delete. But is mostly used for Frederick Foswell in comics or Tombstone and Green Goblin in The Spectacular Spider-Man animated show. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect So far nobody's put forth any evidence of notability, even the biggest 100 page argument means nothing if there is nothing to back up your claims. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete & Redirect~~ Merge to Frederick Foswell- Despite the above claims of notability, no reliable, secondary sources have been provided indicating notability of the shared character name, and searching for them myself has been unsuccessful. The only one of the these characters that has even the remotest bit of notability is the original, Frederick Foswell version, who already has a separate article. I'm not sure if even that page is sufficient enough to pass the WP:GNG, but I did find a few non-primary sources that talked about Frederick briefly, so the name space should be Redirected there as the primary topic. Rorshacma (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Killer Moff below that brief coverage of the other, not-so-notable versions of the character can be introduced to the target article, and have changed my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frederick Foswell. I largely agree with @Rorshacma:, but given the other characters here have direct connections to Foswell, perhaps a brief legacy section detailing them would work. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page. @Andrew Davidson:, @Jhenderson777:, and @BOZ: are right about their claim. Plus, I had established that page as a set index to talk about the different Big Man characters including the one from MC2. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With multiple characters from multiple comics a redirect is not the best option.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 21 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) 04:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Lazaridis[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMODEL or WP:MUSICBIO. Not able to find any kind of significant coverage in English sources. Presented sources are trivial, lacking in depth coverage. Fails on WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The accommodation contains referrals and information (depending on the age of the person and his professional background so far). There are accommodations that have no referrals and little information about persons. There is no reason to delete this accommodation. As far as sources are concerned, there are sources such as People Greece and established Greek sites. Man makes a career in Greece, what do English sources have to do with it? Finally, there are references from overseas sites.. Bilakos1 talk 16:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. No in-depth coverage from Greek sources, as well; just his mother's son. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nomination. The media comparing him or referring to his parents does not make him "his mom's son", nor does he cancel his collaborations. You know very well how the media works around the world. Bilakos1 talk 21:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your contributions to en/WP are on Lazaridis' parents articles, especially his mother Popi Maliotaki (and the same is true for your clobal contributions). So, actually you created the article on him because he is his mother's son, and it also seems that there is WP:COI with your subject. Perhaps we must consider that "Bill" in Greek is frequently used as dimutitive for the Greek given name "Vasilis" (not William, as is the case in English), and "Bilakos", your user name, in Greek means "Billy Boy" or "Boy Bill" = "Boy Vasilis". So, probably this is a self-promotinal article. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguments are pointless and you are trying to make an impression with your own guesses. It's funny to talk about the username someone uses in Wikipedia. There are articles in Wikipedia that have no references or sources and continue to be active. I will not continue this discussion nor will I apologize for my username. Bilakos1 talk 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your global contibutions since 2015 revolving only around Lazaridis' mother is pure, hard evidence. Any comments about it? That you don't have any WP:COI with your subject, and that you are not an WP:SPA? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The fact that some WP articles have no references at all does not mean that another article on a no notable person like V.L. must remain, just because it has references. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the fact that in Wikipedia has articles with no sources and no references. I can't find a reason to delete this article. The user who created it has also used sources and references. Prispress talk 21:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a user with no other edits to en/WP, and an account with some contributions to wikidata and commons and an couple of other language WPs, all related to Vasilis Lazaridis [6]. This is without any doubt a case of sock- or meatpuppetry, and canvassing (or, even of paid contribution for promotional reasons). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage about the subject. WP:COI and WP:SOCK concerns as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded nothing. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 21 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 08:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sfurti Sahare[edit]

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

Non-notable author, less than 300 books solved, lack in-depth references, all signs of undisclosed paid edits. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for total lack of reliable sources; these include Amazon, blogs, social media, and her old school. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:STUBIFY. A quick Google search turned up some coverage - [7] [8] [9]; I'd support keeping the article per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST, and rewriting the whole thing. Could the nominator explain what less than 300 books solved means? Dee 03 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Times of India says she is a bestselling writer. [10] Seems to get coverage in places. Dream Focus 18:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed in the disucssion, though it would be preferable if they could be baked into the article as well. /Julle (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 21 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. No new input to resolve the divisions from before the last relist, and it's not clear whether the nominator (who seems to have attempted to vanish before being indeffed) still supports deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Oliver[edit]

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

Non-notable. Single reference -BigDwiki^talk 04:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 more sources, I'm not saying they're enough: [11][12][13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more: [14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. He was the editor of the New York Daily News, but apparently didn't distinguish himself. The New York Times obituary I'm going to dismiss as local coverage, as no other paper published one AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:44, 2 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources were found by G.G.S. above, refuting the basis for this nomination. Also it appears the nominator attempted to withdraw this (before being banned 14 minutes later). ―cobaltcigs 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if the sources that have been found were added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local obituary from the same industry does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 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 merge to List of diss tracks. RL0919 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable YouTube diss tracks[edit]

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

List-cruft. Non-notable list with a non-neutral genre without many adequate sources. It is a Laundry List. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~List of notable diss tracks~~ List of diss tracks, which badly needs better (as in, nearly any) references ~~and probably a different title.~~ But regardless, there's no reason to separate the YouTubery from everything else. Somewhat close to a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge songs with articles to list of diss tracks as above (the ones that are actually notable). No need to separate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this was first posted, I've made a few changes to try to address concerns with this list, specifically with notability and with adequacy of reliable sources so far: I found a couple dozen in-depth 2^ndary sources from a range of respectable media (such as NYT, Newsweek, Fox Business, The Verge, and Billboard — generally missing before!) and incorporated them concisely into the list. To do so, I reformatted the list, removing the separate "citations" column to better connect references to the information they support. There's still work to do be done on this article, but I hope this is a step in the right direction. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of notable diss tracks. There is no need to split YouTube diss tracks from regular ones. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason why this page should not be merged with list of diss tracks is twofold:
1. YouTube diss tracks specifically have been discussed in the news & media as their own culturally significant phenomenon—distinct from other diss tracks due to their separate artists, audiences, cultures, objectives, and amphitheater. (I believe the direly-needed changes made and 24 sources added on 6 November help make this more clear)
2. The inclusion criteria for this list ought to be "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", whereas the current inclusion criteria for list of diss tracks is that each entry have its own article—a standard too high for members of this distinct category.
The first is also why I believe this cross-category is not overcategorization and exceeds the standard of encyclopedic cross-categorization.
I understand if others disagree with the second point. In that case, I believe a different alternative to "merge with list of diss tracks" would be best: instead, Merge into a new parent page YouTube diss tracks, which could provide beneficial context to the present list's cultural significance. — Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the convenience of this AFD, could you provide here the two or three best sources that you believe indicate "Youtube diss tracks" are a separate and distinct topic area from "diss tracks" in general? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating on the above, what we would need are sources not just about individual YouTube diss tracks but a bunch of sources which make a clear case that a YouTube diss track is distinct from a diss track beyond just the medium/platform. For me, I'd want to see a main topic along the lines of YouTube diss track, and I strongly suspect there aren't sufficient sources to sustain such a page (as opposed to, say, a sub-section of the main article).

We also wouldn't apply the "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" standard for a list of examples like this. Those are extremely uncommon as stand-alone lists, and would never take the form of examples of a particular genre. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Squeamish Ossifrage—here are a few sources that lead me to believe "YouTube diss tracks" are notable as a category unto themselves, and different than diss tracks in general!

Alexander, Julia, "| YouTube creators reinvented diss tracks to make millions" (21 August 2018), Polygon.
Mak, Aaron, "| The Dark Allegations Behind Some of YouTube’s Most Popular Music Videos" (7 March 2018), Slate.
Lorenz, Taylor, "| The Recording Artist Who Went Platinum for His Diss Tracks on Jake Paul" (14 May 2018), The Daily Beast.
Cirisano, Tatiana, "| How a YouTuber War Launched a Jake Paul Diss Track Onto the Hot 100" (1 September 2017), Billboard.

talk

[reply]

I appreciate your responsiveness. I'll note first off that 3/4 of those links are currently dead due to site restructuring at their respective publishers, but the articles are all still easily available. In any case, I think your sources clearly demonstrate that this is an important phenomenon ... but not one that's wholly distinct from the parent concept (of diss track in general). Indeed, the Polygon article explicitly states that this is a continuation of the rap culture element in a new format. Several of the sources make it clear that this is a multimedia topic, with YouTube videos fueling visibility for songs that did not necessarily debut there. Also, from a project standpoint, diss track is a short, poorly developed article. If that weren't the case, there might be cause to split this up per WP:SPINOUT, but there's really not; neither is List of diss tracks so long that it cannot absorb well-documented YouTube examples. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link formatting! My mistake! Here are a few thoughts on important points you shared (thank you!):

Re: Multimedia — In all of these cases, the songs debuted on YouTube, and my understanding is that their popularity off-platform (eg. songs with Billboard certification) is a secondary result of the first-order popularity of the YouTube music videos themselves.
Re: parent concept — I hear you that these represent a continuation of the rap concept discussed in the broader diss tracks article.
Re: diss (music) is an underdeveloped-developed article — I agree. I don't know, myself, where to find the high quality references needed to build out its missing sections, unfortunately, or I would!
Re: List of diss tracks is not so long that it couldn't absorb well-documented YouTube examples — I'm a little worried because editors have (even in that article's very short lifetime) removed even some of the most notable YouTube examples like "It's Every Night Sis" (platinum certified, many articles), or "The Fall of Jake Paul" (340M views, many articles). One comment left with that type of revision was "The list should only be comprised diss tracks that form from genuine beef or animosity. Youtubers that make diss tracks simply for content should not be included in the list." But perhaps, if the result of this discussion is "Merge," this could be addressed with a note on the talk page of that article? Small concern that a note on the talk page might not fully address the attitude of editors who view "regular" diss tracks as distinct from (and, probably, often superior or more legitimate/than) YouTube diss tracks. These songs not having their own pages suggests they may not be notable enough for Wikipedia right now, but I think we've established that the category is important enough for Wikipedia(?) I don't know how balance these important needs!

Thank you all so much for your perspectives! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's unfortunately missing the epic diss track of Mathologer targeting Numberphile about the infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of diss tracks. There is no need for a second list just for Youtube videos and also we don't use notable in article titles. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:47, 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 keep. Tone 08:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhr Industrial Heritage Trail – Duisburg: Town and Harbour[edit]

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

A non-notable "theme route" on the Industrial Heritage Trail. A Google search for the name in English produces one hit, which is in Vietnamese. A search for the German name, Duisburg: Stadt und Hafen yields no independent coverage. A template, Template:Ruhr Industrial Heritage Trail lists this as the first of 25 such theme routes, and all the others are redlinks. Largoplazo (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: please visit the German language version of this page: Route der Industriekultur – Duisburg: Stadt und Hafen. You will see a large number of blue links, and also when you expand the boxes at the bottom, you will see that the German language version of the template mentioned above, Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Route der Industriekultur has no blue links only red links. As the German wikipedia is not for its lack of profligacy when it comes to creating articles, I would suggest time would be better spent improving the article and coping with all those redlinks ratherthan deleting the article. Leutha (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of notability can't be fixed with edits. Also, each Wikipedia has its own guidelines and practices. Largoplazo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How true! However as the series of trails have attracted 7.26 million visitors, generated 285 million euros in sales, and created 6,150 jobs in the last twenty years, 20 Jahre Route der Industriekultur these routes are clearly notable. Leutha (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that you plead for the article to be improved, yet you've now taken, twice so far, to removing a tag signaling an obvious need for improvement, which is to replace all the German with English. Largoplazo (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not realise that you had revert my first removal so quickly, and mistakenly removed it again. Please see talk page, which is the right place for further discussion of this matter.Leutha (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article on German WP (here)has a number of books listed which may discuss this trail but although WP is a gazeteer, it is not a tourguide, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good point: more has been added. Leutha (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest inland harbour in the world is not considered notable? Really? If Castlefield is notable this will be. I say will be in the context of present emphatic and also future. Heritage articles have a life history look how Chatham_Dockyard&oldid=8707036 December 2004 has developed into Chatham Dockyard.. this is analogous, and the final structure of this article could be the same but it may take 19 years. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that from "Oppose" to "Keep", which is the usual language for AFDs. Change it back if you prefer. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the harbor, which is covered at Duisburg Inner Harbour. It's a list of stops on one of many sightseeing "theme routes" (walking tours, I guess) that someone has designed around the trail. The sights on the route are certainly notable, but an arbitrary composition of them into a walking tour would have to meet WP:GNG in its own right. Largoplazo (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your problem is? "Someone"???? erm, the trail is part of the Industrial Heritage Trail, which in turn is part of the European Route of Industrial Heritage. As mentioned above: "the series of trails have attracted 7.26 million visitors, generated 285 million euros in sales, and created 6,150 jobs in the last twenty years, 20 Jahre Route der Industriekultur these routes are clearly notable." Not quite sure hwy you have not taken this point into account.Leutha (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the Industrial Heritage Trail is notable. It is not the case that every part of a notable thing is automatically independently notable and qualified for a Wikipedia article of its own. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment is relevant to the individual sites on each heritage trail, and, indeed, as the page is being developed it would not be relevant to create a page for each individual item: thus for instance the links to Duisburg Canals rather to each individual canal. The trail links otherwise diverse buildings and structures into a trail. However with the different trails, they are cut from the same cloth, or to use another metaphor, they have notability funning through them like the name of a seaside town in a stick of rock.Leutha (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a public trail, we keep these, always. Every AFD ever about historic trails, about bicycle trails along old railroad right-of-ways, etc., about bridges converted to pedestrian usage, etc. are all closed "Keep", because they are major public attractions and newsworthy. I think there's an essay, wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (maybe i contributed to that). Trails take decades to develop and continue to develop more over time, it is fair to expect deep coverage about government decisions to set aside trailspace and fund development over the years, etc. I am betting you and I don't know how to search properly to find the internet coverage about it in German. Sure this can be tagged for better development, and I don't understand the relationship between it and the Industrial Heritage Trail which should be clarified, but this is a significant trail on its own, and I can't argue about merging it vs. splitting it. So Keep and leave to informed editors later if it makes sense to merge it into the article about the Industrial Heritage Trail. Here, clearly, the English-language Wikipedia coverage is poor and needs to be developed, but deleting stuff just to recreate it later (because we do know it is obviously a notable topic), goes against Wikipedia guidelines. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. We don't evaluate notability based on our assumption that something is worthy of coverage. That would be the exact opposite of WP:GNG. We look for coverage that exists. As far as knowing how to search properly is concerned, I've been running online searches for over 20 years. I'm sure I don't need to take special training to "properly" execute a Google search for the name of this trail in both English and German.

Looking through the German Wikipedia article, I see no indication that this is a constructed trail. Setting aside that six out of the nine paragraphs in that article aren't even about the trail, the three paragraphs that do cover it say nothing that would lead to suspect the public had any interest in its arrangement, which isn't even covered in the article. It appears to be one of a number of convenient walking tours that a committee designed to make it easy to see a number of the notable sights around the harbor. I can't imagine why that would have received any external coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears to be an organized trail. And editor Leutha opened that template in 2010 and has been editing it in the last few days. Like walking tours in lots of places, the route may go along regular streets and sidewalks. The trail is recommended in this tourist website: 25 best things Duisberg Germany. I agree it would help to locate a trail map, say, but I do not understand German well enough to find such. There is this Komoot website on hiking routes near Duisberg, which may be more nature-oriented than an organized trail through an industrial area. --Doncram (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a strong desire to Keep this article, but we still need to see the 2-3 explicit diffs to the WP:RS that nails GNG for this. Remember, this article is about the "themed route", and not the towns or ports per se, so we need to see that this section of the "themed route" is inherently notable (otherwise, the logical option is to merge into the Industrial Heritage Trail article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We always keep public trails in WP. Major public attractions are notable. The article should be improved and expanded with additional sources. Perhaps another heading for Duisburg Harbour is the Worlds biggest inland port. Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We always keep public trails because we just decided randomly to declare them inherently notable? Where's the guideline reflecting that? Or we "always" keep them insofar as the ones you've seen discussed were individually found to meet WP:GNG? But, then, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Or, do you actually know that we "always" do? Evidence, in that case?

Referring to it as a major public attraction is begging the question. If it has little coverage, then how is it a major attraction? Largoplazo (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It now has eight references, more than the additional 2-3 requested by Britishfinance. Thus we must conclude that it does have much more than little coverage. Leutha (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leutha, it will help the AfD close efficiently if you can paste diffs of the 3 main refs that you think confirm GNG on this AfD page. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more discussion of the actual sources and fewer assertions in the vein of "we always keep X".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Dutch-language reference in the article is about the Ruhr Industrial Heritage Trail in general, not about the Duisburg section in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response, however the source does specifically refer to this section to provide context for a more general remark.Leutha (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The route has been a prominent subject in multiple peer reviewed journal articles. See:

Guerin, Frances ; Guerin, Frances (Editor) (December 2017). Physically absent, visually present: Joachim Schumacher’s photographs of Germany’s Ruhr Valley. Vol. 47(4). p. 392-410. ((cite book)): |author= has generic name (help); |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Klempa, Martin ; Bujok, Petr ; Porzer, Michal ; Skupien, Petr (2016). Industrial Complexes and their Role in Industrial Tourism - Example of Conversion. Vol. 62(1). p. 45-50. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Otto, Marius ; Chmielewska, Marta (June 2014). Social Inclusion by Revitalisation? The Potential of Disused Industrial Areas as an Opportunity for Mitigating Social Polarisation. p. 115-125. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 21 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 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Prasad Mishra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the three references, only one is about him. The other two are actually the same article, are the obituary of French Olympian Jacques Dupont (cyclist), and have absolutely no mention of Mishra. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 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 procedural close. Wrong venue, deletion of drafts can be discussed at WP:MFD (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lawrence Lalhlanthara[edit]

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

Lawrence Lalhlanthara page created by User:Lawrence Lalhlantharabut I moved the page Lawrence Lalhlanthara to Draft:Lawrence Lalhlanthara because this article is not complete and no evidence for nobility. I say page creator name "Lawrence Lalhlanthara" Lawrence Lalhlanthara created your name article on Wikipedia, I request to wiki administrator please deleted Draft and Lawrence Lalhlantharaand protected infinite. (thanks) . Vivek ji123 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vivek ji123 (talk) 12:14, 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 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Ali Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, impact not shown. Geschichte (talk) 14:23, 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 delete. Tone 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Habibi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are independent reliable sources about subject but it seems he hasn't main role in films. I added one reference to article which is in subject's native language. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to change my view, but at the moment it seems WP:TOOSOON for this actor to qualify for WP:NACTOR inclusion criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:12, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Suleman[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is one in a series continually created by the same user that keep getting deleted. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not much there at all. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the other articles the user created. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:36, 20 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 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League of Super-Assassins[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Currently just one irrelevant source. TTN (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 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 redirect to List of The Sandman characters#Foxglove. RL0919 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxglove (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Sandman characters - Though that list is sorely in need of some attention and cleanup, Foxglove is one of the characters that would likely be on it even after that, as she was a major character in several of the series' arcs and spinoffs. That said, she does have some coverage, but most of it consists of plot information on the stories she appeared in. There is some mention of her in articles discussing positive portrayals of LGBT characters in comics, but even those are pretty brief and mostly just plot information. So, not enough coverage to support an independent article, but certainly enough to be covered in the character list. As this article only consists of plot information, the entirety of which is already present in the list, merging is not necessary at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Sandman characters per Rorschacma's comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 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 Legion of Substitute Heroes. RL0919 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorophyll Kid[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legion of Substitute Heroes where the character is already mentioned and it could be a viable search term. I am not entirely opposed to deletion though since there does not appear to be the coverage necessary to establish notability, but I am always partial to redirecting whenever possible. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not delete. Also if you want I might can redirect all the Legion of Substitute Heroes? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 07:33, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Fisher[edit]

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

This page was originally deleted in February 2016 and recreated a few month later by an editor who has made very few other edits and thus runs close to being a SPA. The original page was nominated as having "barely any references at all and no claim of notability" and this still appears to be the case: the references regarding her appearance as a child performer are merely passing mentions in "whatever happened to..." articles, or in trade magazines to her (non-notable) equestrian work. In light of the fact that the page was re-created after a previous deletion, I propose it be salted to prevent a recurrence ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: crikey, I'm old enough to remember the Minipops programme and subsequent album, and she's still recognisable in the article's photo as the girl who played Sheena Easton (she may even be wearing less make-up now than as an eight-year-old). However, I think her appearance on Minipops might run close to being a WP:BLP1E – it's true that it did cause some fuss at the time, but it was forgotten pretty quickly (like the programme) and I doubt that if you conducted a survey now there would be anyone could name the girl who played Sheena Easton in Minipops, even though she's appeared on several TV shows since then talking about it in a promotional capacity. What stops me voting for an outright delete is that I know nothing about equestrianism and I don't know if being in the GB team passes WP:EQUINE notability – the FEI Nations Cup is certainly a notable event but I don't know that taking part in it would make someone notable. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A search turned up nothing.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has won 2004 FEI Nations Cup, Steinhagen CDN GP Special which makes her notable and really Minipops easily helps out in passing WP:GNG. She has been a professional equestrian who has multiple international tournamnents which have their pages FEI Nations Cup. If minipops doesn't helps that her professional careers an equestrian does makes her notable. Its just that we need to look from a wider angle. Meeanaya (talk) 06:58, 21 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Aryal[edit]

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

This WP:Autobiography is ref-bombed with misleading, non-independent sources and some mere mentions. I couldn't find WP:RSes to take it past WP:GNG. Either the subject fails GNG, despite being involved with people/activities that do pass it (not inherited), or we need better diggers of sources to provide us with some independent SIGCOV, so the article can be brought up to standards. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:56, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Black[edit]

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

No coverage for this production company - fails WP:NCORP. The sources cited talk about Burka Avenger. Störm (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Topic fails notability in its own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 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 redirect to Cadre (comics). Consensus that this article cannot stand on its own, but also that there may be use as a redirect or as a source for material on Cadre (comics); since it's not clear what material could be salvaged I'll apply redirect rather than merge; if people find such material they can copy it over. Regarding the contention that the target article would likely not survive a deletion discussion and that thus no redirect is warranted, that should be tested at AFD and if deletion ensues this redirect would be deleted as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mass (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable comic book cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Cadre. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Cadre. Almost no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Cadre (comics). As mentioned, there is pretty much no significant converge in reliable secondary sources. He is already covered in the main article on the team he appeared in, so while I would technically support a Redirect, that target article also consists only of primary sourced plot detail, and would likely not survive an AFD itself. So, I would be fine if this was just deleted now, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lollywood (Liberian Film)[edit]

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

Not my field, but I do not see any evidence for notability. The title is impossible to search for, but by searching for filmmaker I eventually found an interview with him where he mentions it at [15] an a mention ehere [16]. , plus some announcements of showings. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking on IMDB, it states it's a 10-minute short. I found this which has some coverage, along with mentions here and here. Maybe that's enough for a weak keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only the third actually has a paragraph describing the film; the other two the part of this film is under 30 words long, counting the heading. As some of this filmmaker's films are much better covered, perhaps this could be repurposed into an article on Looby. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As DGG notes, I think the best approach here would be to merge this to the currently redlinked Todd Looby. In the aggregate, he seems to have attracted quite a lot of attention, but there's very little focused coverage on any particular one of his works. That suggests we're better off, for now, addressing the various films in one place. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing comment There is no evidence of independent notability but the correct parent article, as noted by DGG and Squeamish Ossifrage does not yet exist so I can't really recommend merging or renaming. Probably the best course of action is to move it to draft space and rename it there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 20 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Yaa Asare[edit]

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

The "World Certified Professional Award" only seems to exist in relation to her. That she is "the first African woman to achieve this status" is meaningless when she is the only person anywhere to achieve this. The "International Centre for Executive Security Training" is not known otherwise either, the organised one "summit" and that's it. Basically, this is a regurgitated press release about a non notable person winning a non notable award from a non notable organisation, which was reprinted in a few sources. Fram (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are just PR churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 20 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 Millennium Management, LLC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is redundant. It seems there is no use for this page. There already exists a disambiguation page for Millennium, where one of the articles listed on this page is already listed, and the other article found here can easily be moved to. Rubberduckieyouretheone (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millennium Management, LLC and add hatnote pointing to the other usage. Page views over 90 days are in ration 143:8, supporting the LLC as primary topic. PamD 10:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Millennium Management, LLC as primary topic, per PamD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 20 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) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nimble School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only available sources appear to be primary and out-dated. The original official website was archived on the wayback machine, and the current school website is on wordpress, with application info from 2014. Without multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, fails GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with @Grand'mere Eugene:, fails GNG Rocktober2018 (talk) 22:02, 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) 10:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yanga Chief[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Subject of article doesn’t pass WP:SINGER and a google search shows subject is only mentioned but never discussed in detail. Furthermore references in article doesn’t portray notability in any way. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I mean it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG & WP:RS. Yanga Chief is just your ordinary small artist. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:47, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fords of Isen[edit]

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

Fictional battle. WP:PLOT, fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. WP:BEFORE does not reveal anything beyond PRIMARY sources/plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The battle is a minor incident in the book. The fictional location is not important in the book. This is fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. This is currently a topic for a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 12:40, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Youngblood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The two references currently in the article are a listing in an online database and a promotional interview/profile in an adult magazine. I looked for additional sources and found nothing under any of this person's aliases. His industry awards don't count towards anything either, now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Not a notable performer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and there's not solid references. Abtehas98 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer in pornographic productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 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 Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counterintuitive[edit]

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

This article has no clearly defined topic. It's merely a definition of the adjectival title along with a bunch of examples of things that are (possibly) counterintuitive, mixed together with a little bit of personal reflection essay. At the very least, WP:TNT applies – there's nothing here to salvage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Article is poorly sourced WP:OR/WP:ESSAY and given the topic, it's unlikely it could ever be anything else. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is true that we are not WP:NOTDICT. This topic requires more investigation. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure this helps, but here is an entry from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify. (a rarely used AfD option) by WP:SOFTREDIR to the Wiktionary page. The page already exists there and is in decent shape, and nothing needs to be salvaged from this particular page per WP:NOTDICT policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:50, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of Teen Wolf[edit]

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

Collection of fictional, in-universe, non-notable minutia. TTN (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some works that can support a mythos article that this is trying to be eg Mythology of Lost. However, these 100% need third party sourcing to demonstrate that there is interest in the fictional minutia and to that degree, how in-depth we can actually get. Without it, they fail NOT#PLOT, GNG, and WAF. This is one of those. --Masem (t) 01:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking for reliable secondary sources and I'm just not finding anything relating back to Teen Wolf and not the mythological bases themselves. I think Anuk-ite could probably stand to have a page, but this doesn't seem to make the grade. hewhoam areismyself 02:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is pretty much nothing but unsourced plot detail. Actually looking for sources discussing the mythological elements of the series only turns up some fansites, and no reliable, secondary sources. It should also be noted that the two seemingly legit sources being cited in the article are on the actual original figures from mythology, and are not about the TV series at all. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fancrust.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanisse V. Daza[edit]

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

This article was created by paid editor MTDRDC. I have removed significant portions of the original article, which violated BLP policy, and tagged it with maintenance templates should anyone wish to continue revising it. In my assessment however, there are fundamental problems with the article that warrant deletion:

The subject of the article does not meet the General Notability Guideline. The article as it stands is heavily reliant on primary sources and trivial mentions in news stories. Virtually all the biographical information on Daza had to be removed, because it could not be verified in any reliable source. I have searched for more direct coverage of Daza and her work, but very little mention of her exists outside of self-published sources. The best coverage of her is from the Kent State website, which is clearly significant, but her alma mater is not unquestionably an independent source, and much of what they say relates to her relationship with them, on which they would essentially be a primary source.
Wikipedia is not for public relations. Jhanisse V. Daza works for the Human Rights Foundation. The Human Rights Foundation, according to MTDRDC's userpage, paid "Matadord DC" (Probably Matador) to create this page (MTDRDC's only contribution to date). In our conflict of interest guideline, paid editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" (emphasis in original). They are also advised to "put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". That these guidelines were ignored is a huge red flag that the article was created for the wrong reasons (if paid editing alone wasn't enough).

I'd encourage everyone to look for themselves, but my assessments of the sources cited in the article at present are as follows:

Extended content

Source	Significant coverage?	Reliable, secondary source?	Independent of the subject?
BBC News	N	Y	Y
Kent State	Y	Y	N
HRF Freedom Fellowship	N	N	N
Pagina Siete	N	Y	Y
NBC News	N	Y	Y
HRF Morales	N	N	N
TEDx	Y	N	N

Given the creator's dubious background and the relative anonymity of the subject, this article should be deleted without controversy. —Rutebega (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Rutebega (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. —Rutebega (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does seem to be a promotional effort. Mentions are frequent but almost always trivial. I would say it is WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a propaganda attempt. Not notable. Created by a paid user (User:MTDRDC) sponsored by a PR company (http://www.matadordc.com/) on behalf of her employer, Human Rights Foundation. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely promotional. But more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, the subject is simply not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:32, 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.