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

The result was keep per very clear WP:Consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk Barn[edit]

Bulk Barn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG Catorce2016 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty of media coverage of this company. Examples: Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative, Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers, Bulk Barn has embraced the Zero Waste movement, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Raises Record Amount for Alzheimer Society Fundraising, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Takes the Lead in the Alzheimer Society's 18th Annual Coffee Break(R) Fundraiser, Bulk Barn plans to open store on Yates Street, Bulk Barn reopens after renovations, Xylitol Canada Announces Retail Distribution Through Bulk Barn Stores Across Canada. That's just after 10 seconds of a web search. There's likely plenty more that's not accessible online. The stub article as is needs work, but the subject is notable. Mindmatrix 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. Article needs work, but I'm pretty sure the subject meets the notability requirements. Ahiijny (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that the subject is notable, a quick google search yields many results and the chain has over 250 locations. This seems like just cause to be considered notable. I am working on the page more and more as this is just the start. I hope you consider my point of view. Dellwood546 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that an article about this company was previously deleted (per CSD G11). There were several contributors to that article that appeared to have a close connection to the company (possibly even COI ). Some may have been paid editors, as they had also edited other company articles to add material that is clearly not encyclopedic (either in content or tone). Others edited only (the previous version of) this article. The original version was a decent stub, but in early 2011 the addition of marketing fluff began. Irrespective of this, see my 'keep' comment above. Mindmatrix 19:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Mindmatrix' comment above. Also, the sources indicated above are either non-qualifying trite, trivial, and passing mention coverage, are primary sources, or they are not reliable sources. For example, sources about store remodels, store openings/closures, company charitable donations, and product introductions (i.e., re-usable containers) do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Crucially, though, the second-stage test, that of WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. So, strong delete on failing that policy. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the links I provided above are by no means exhaustive; as I stated above, those were what I found "after 10 seconds of a web search". Also, note that in each of the articles I linked, Bulk Barn was the primary subject of the article (ie - there were no "passing mention coverage"). The only primary source was the MarketWatch press release; the same information was reported in news articles elsewhere (and coverage of the previous year's donation is one of the links above). Your !vote should be based on your own research into the subject, not on the subset of results I posted from my search. I just conducted another quick search and found mentions of the company in the Franchise Law Journal (volume 23), in the book "Defending Class Actions in Canada" (which references the case "909787 Ontario Ltd v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd"), in the book Smart Shopping Montreal (this is a trivial mention, I know), and more. Unfortunately, much of Canadian business reporting is either paywalled or offline, so building decent articles about Canadian companies (other than the largest ones, of course) often requires a lot of effort to find reliable sources. I think this company likely passes that threshold, but I don't have access to ProQuest or other such sources to search newspaper archives, let alone archives of other sources. Mindmatrix 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mindmatrix, Right, I get they're the subject, and I did did my own research. What a lot of editors fail to consider is the type of significant coverage. Having reliable sources mostly focused on class-action lawsuit outcomes or on a particular controversy but which provide little on the company's history or otherwise contribute to writing a balanced article. Maybe type of WP:SIGCOV isn't explicitly written in the policy, I'm know sure, but to me, it ought to be. If anything, our notability standards are too lax. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The company has been the subject of multiple independent peer reviewed journal articles mostly pertaining to various legal actions against the company for human rights violations. Additionally, the company's products have been used in many food and agricultural science publications which, while not directly about the company, do indicate some notability as well. See:

1. "Recent Developments in Canadian Franchise Class Actions"; Thomas, Evan; Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2016, Vol.35(3), pp.399-418
2. "Defendant class actions and the right to opt out: lessons for Canada from the United States"; Morabito, Vince; Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Summer, 2004, Vol.14(2), p.197(52)
3. "An Updated Road Map to Entering the Canadian Market"; Weinberg, Larry ; Shaw, Geoffrey; Franchise Law Journal, Spring 2008, Vol.27(4), pp.253-263
4. "Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision: Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, 2019 HRTO 803 (CanLII)"; Financial Law Reporter, July 10, 2019

Additionally, the company and its products have independent reviews in the following:

1. "WASTE NOT, WANT NOT"; Kucharsky, Danny; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2016, Vol.130(8), pp.13-14
2. "Keeping it loose"; Harris, Rebecca; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2012/Jan 2013, p.17

There were many more sources that could be added, but I think this is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The human rights violations alone lend notability as the public has a vested interest in learning about that topic as it relates to public safety concerns in the food supply.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to XfD Closer: These journal article sources should be examined closely by downloading each source and ensuring none of them just reference Bulk Barn either in a passing mention, a tangential way, or in the journal article's bibliography. I'm still not convinced any of these sources provided by the above editors pass. Note, too, that a single legal decision(s) are considered trivial coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 20:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus: Have you actually read the sources? If not, you shouldn't be expressing any sort of judgment about being convinced or unconvinced. That's not following WP:AGF. Additionally, look at the years of coverage. This isn't just one case with articles dating from 2004-2019.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I always assume good faith, so reject that assertion otherwise. I didn't download them because I may or may not have access to them at all. It would be helpful, when including sources, to include a relevant annotation for each article, to those without access and for convenience, that describes how each article mentions the subject of this Wikipedia article (Bulk Barn). Sorry if any misunderstanding taken, though. Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was pretty clear in my communication that the organization has been accused of human rights violations in multiple class action law suites over the past two decades which have significant coverage in peer reviewed journal articles provided above.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, Yes, that's clear, but for clarity, I meant the class actions. Are they covering Bulk Barn specifically, or just mentioning/referencing Bulk Barn in a brief paragraph or two? The latter would not count whereas the former certainly would. Doug Mehus T·C 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles deal with Ontario Ltd. v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. which was a class action lawsuit by franchise holders against the parent company. The case is the central focus of both articles. The third article also deals with this case and its wider implications in doing business in Canada. It was an important case. The last article is about a bundled class action case Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, which deals with human rights violations and food safety concerns. In each article, the company is a central focus.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems clearly notable, coverage linked above alone is more than enough to pass the GNG. The current article needs significant wok, but that is not a reason for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DESiegel, Note that Miraclepine, in relisting this discussion, asked for others to assess the sources provided by 4meter4 to see the degree to which they provide coverage—including, crucially, in-depth historical corporate background information—on Bulk Barn or whether they are merely relating to class action lawsuits or labour disputes. If the latter is the case, then a retitling, refactoring, and splitting of this article might be the case to focus on the specific legal machinations with respect to Bulk Barn as happened with another case, NCIX, and as recommended by Cunard, who, like 4meter4, dug up some useful reliable sources that focused not so much on NCIX as a company but their data breaches and resulting lawsuits. Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, may be relevant - found this: BBF was involved in the first class action case (1999) between franchisee and franchisor in Ontario - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Coolabahapple, These all sound like great sources for a multi-company article focusing on class action lawsuits between Canadian franchise owners and franchisors—the article of which could include Bulk Barn, which would serve as a redirect to the applicable section of that article, and Tim Horton's class action lawsuits, among others. Doug Mehus T·C 15:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SIGCOV 250 locations... Media coverage of this company. Example: Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers and Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wm335td, Except those aren't significant coverage. They're routine, run of the mill coverage. I wouldn't consider "reusable containers" to be a particularly noteworthy development. Even if we liberally interpreted this as meeting WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered, for which there are simply insufficient reliable, independent sources on which to write more than a perpetual, stub- or start-class article. Thus, that crucial second test of WP:CORPDEPTH is most definitely failed.

  At best, if you're concerned with preserving editor attribution, I'd support retargeting to Bulk foods#Retailers with an Rcat "to section" identified. Alternatively, I'd potentially support a retitle-ing of this article to be focused on Bulk Barn's apparent eco-friendly efforts (similar to what we did weith NCIX post-AfD close). Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This does meet Wikipedia:Notability as there are ample amounts of significant coverage. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:55, 23 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 Virtual reality headset. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VR HMD mount[edit]

VR HMD mount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references in the article support the existence of the terminology "virtual reality head mounted display mount". No reliable sources come up from a Google search of the phrase, likely because it does not exist since it is a mouthful. Most coverage of Google Cardboard, Google Daydream, and Samsung Gear VR simply refer to them as VR headsets. The virtual reality headset article already has a dedicated paragraph to discussing how these enclosure-type devices differ from self-contained headsets. I recommend the VR HMD mount article redirect to that one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. I see no need for a redirect as this isn't a likely search term.4meter4 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Up to 33 pageviews/day shows that some-one is using it as a search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me those are visits from articles that have Wikilinked to the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:43, 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 , or at least there was no consensus to delete this article. Editors disagreed if WP:NOTABILITY had been established sufficiently, and how major/minor the character was. As a middle ground, I recommend to consider merging this article into a list of characters as an editorial measure. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umar (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Umar (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all first party sourcing and writing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:INU. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable comic character, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nominator. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*I am more lenient with keeping this one. A major Doctor Strange enemy IMO. I would help save it if I had time. A full delete doesn’t sound necessary. There is List of Marvel Comics characters: U for brief mention of the character. But that’s just me. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per...what though? You’re not citing anything, policy, guideline, sourcing, or...anything. You didn’t give a reason. Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning (even though I shouldn’t have to explain it) is that I feel there should be coverage on the character as she is a recurring enemy of Doctor Strange. I already explained I would look for some if I wasn’t busy, Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You provided zero evidence. Until you do, this is nothing but a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES violation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are being oblivious but I just linked sources on the bottom and had a lot of google news results of the character. I said I was busy at the time to not do it. That’s all! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those are supposed to be significant coverage? I spotchecked a few of your bombardment of sources below, and just saw extremely brief passing mentions and listical entries. What I saw is not a convincing argument for meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew you would say that. I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it. But those sources did say stuff for a reception section at least that I can put down. As I said before GNG can be subjective because that fits my criteria for notability. It wouldn't even be a surprise if she is a character in the next Doctor Strange film potentially but I am not using that for a basis. If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays. Then let me point out your double standard that you are not complaining about all the WP:PERNOM, WP:ASSERTN, WP:Not notable or WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP etc. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not spend much time at AFD or something? It’s not particularly controversial to assert that short listicle entries aren’t meeting the GNG, nor is it a “double standard” if I don’t question every person on their stance. I just found your stance particularly weak, and it’s telling that you’re spending more time complaining about me than you are providing better sources or formulating a better argument for meeting the GNG than “well it passes because my standards are super low”. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were the first one to complain about a vote. Also no I don’t spend much time of AFDs like I used to. I most likely like to edit and improve articles. Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jhenderson777 or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. BOZ (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Considering Doctor Strange only namedrops the character one time in a parenthetical, I don't think Umar can be considered one of his major enemies. When templates are discounted, there are 21 incoming links from article bodies. Of those 21, at least 10 are lists. Spot checking the remaining 11 reveals passing mentions only. This doesn't meet my criteria for being notable within the fiction, but I don't oppose a redirect to something that already exists, like List of comic book supervillain debuts, which contains all the real world information about the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• merge short summary to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying merge not delete. I still want keep but she is significant enough Marvel character to mention outside of a namedrop. Plus if she appears in the Doctor Strange sequel then we should use someplace to link her. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay. @Jhenderson777: is right on his statements here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please express a valid reason. Neither you nor Jhenderson have yet. Cite a policy and explain how it’s met please. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just let people vote for crying out loud. There is two violations of deleters anyway. I am not replying to them in this page am I? I figur it’s fair. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Minor character meriting a (minor) article. Definitely needs to be trimmed way the heck down, but WP:DINC. Ford MF (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not even remotely policy based. The concern isn’t “cleanup”, the problem is failing the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seem how many AFD's this editor has been doing? Could of fooled me if he ain’t trying to cleanup an entire topic. GNG is getting really subjective now. Me and another editor thinks it notable ready it seems. But I know you will beg to differ. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t care how many AFDs they’ve been part of - here, they did not cite or explain how any sort of policy or guideline was met. I mean, read what he said. It’s plain as day he cited nothing. Your defenses are baffling. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am going to back away from responding to you because you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds. Because even though I am stressed a little now. I personally still have a level head and i am not trying to be mean. Just clarifying since you told me to "calm down" one time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you keep interpreting my comments like this. I’m not upset or angry in the least. I’m just making very simple, basic comments here. I don’t get upset when I need to inform people of failing to follow through on the very basics of AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did research and added imperfect ongoing info on it. I am keeping my vote from keep to speedy keep. I don’t think the articles needs to deleted at all. That's mainly means I want it merged if it can’t be kept. No need to pull the plug of the article. Also I concur with WP:DINC. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned on the Notability talk page, you have added trivial, topical, dime-a-dozen articles that have no particular weight. Random people speculating on future Marvel movies, Top 10 lists, and simple one sentence mentions do not establish notability. These are mass produced drivel, and none of them even mention the character in great capacity in the first place. TTN (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is significant coverage. Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted. Just by what the sources are. Stop edit conflicting my opinion anyway. You can just ignore my vote. Also some of those had subsection of the character. They aren’t just trivial mentions. So don’t deceive some editors by what you think the sources are. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all sources are equal. Websites that pump out dozens of non-news articles on pop culture items every day without stopping have less quality than those that actually care about editorial standards. It doesn't mean there is absolutely no place for them ever, but it does mean that they have less weight. Any article that puts in more than a sentence is simply recounting in-universe details on the character. This is less to change your mind and more to make others aware that these are trivial sources. The issue here is that you have it in your mind that a subjectively major character in-universe must translate to notable on Wikipedia, so you're taking anything you can find to make that a reality. TTN (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Move on and let other editors have different opinions for a change. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have you not given a valid “speedy” keep reason, you’ve now given two bolded stances, which isn’t allowed. Please calm down, the closing admin is going to see right through all this. You’re not even trying to reconcile your stance with policy. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You are accusing me of doing that on purpose. I am not trying to fool an administrator!!! You’re the one that needs to calm down because you just violated Wp:Agf. All I have to do is cross the old message but I figured I didn’t need to. I said I changed my vote. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I did is objectively and simply point out that you left two bolded stances concurrently active at the time. That’s not an AGF violation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded to me like you implied I am being deceiving to an administrator. Which is not assuming good faith IMO. If not what you meant I apologize. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has now been established with citations of twelve secondary sources, and detailed information from those sources on that character's status as iconic, fan favorite villain. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the specific sources that show that the subject meets the WP:GNG? There’s been some WP:BOMBARD issues so far, where the sources given don’t really illustrate significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL me thinks the editor protests too much about everything I post here. Yes he did use some of my pointed out sources so I guess we both bombarded the article with these sources that just don’t illustrate notability enough good enough for some. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirection aside, it’s usually not a good sign when there’s not a single person who can identify multiple specific GNG-satisfying sources after multiple requests to do so... Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why that can be? Is it maybe you don’t want to be convinced it is notable? Could we change your mind that she is a notable fictional character and/or shouldn’t be deleted? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To recap: I ask you for policy-based rational, you respond with baseless complaining and nonsense? What are you doing over there? Has this historically worked for you at AFD? Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining. In fact I am obviously being just silly now with pop culture references because you are being way too serious with everything I type. Let's put a smile on that face! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, but I didn’t need an explanation to know that you’re wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant babbling. Can you provide a specific policy based explanation for your stance or not? Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit was Nightscream's. So I guess I don’t don’t know. Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines and vote keep because I think they are notable. I guess it’s because I don’t edit video game articles like you enough and edit comic book related articles instead and (heaven forbid) I am a fan. At least Nightscream is an admin like you I guess. I want to hear your opinions together. So let’s try this again. Rabbit season! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

( Nightscream is not an admin for the record. Not that it’s relevant to his !vote, but I thought I’d notify you, since it appears to mean something to you for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

He was at one time I believe. Not that it matters or do I care though. You are wrong again in your assumptions. I am going to stop falling for your bait now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you state something (“Nightscream is an admin”), I note that your statement was objectively incorrect, (he is not) and you somehow attempt to make me out to be the bad guy for it?I have no idea what “assumptions” you’re accusing me of having. I was again only stating basic facts. Sergecross73 msg me 04:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again stop taking every single comment I am making seriouly like you are. Good night man! We are getting off topic now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow... Can i vote TNT on the AfD, and not the article? This is overwhelming =P -2pou (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't stand that this AFD was started. I have never seen people antagonized for trying to save an article so much too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was pinged with the request to review the article since my vote few day ago. The 'Critical reception' is the only section that is relevant for the purpose of establishing notability. I reviewed [7] (few sentences), [8] (mention in passing in a single sentence shared with other characters), [9] and others and I am sorry, I am still not impressed. Nothing here is close to in-depth coverage, it's all a variation of fictional character biography and 'it would be cool if she appeared in a movie since she is bad ass'. Sorry, that's not enough to make her encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm regularly complaining that our notability standards for comic characters are way too low, and particularly so for DC and Marvel. Howevever, in this case, it seems to meet notability.

Should Clea or Dormammu be deleted likewise? Because I would see all three of these as having a comparable foundation for notability. They are part of the Doctor Strange universe, they are long-established historically, they appear adequately often to be significant in-universe and even (within the somewhat less-than academic world of comics lit-crit) they're commented on in review articles. Are any of the claims made in this article somehow false? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability is an article by article case, so other comparable characters have to prove their own way. The issue with this article in particular is that the quality of the sources gathered is abysmal. It's a bunch of single mention clickbait with no substance. Some examples include:

• The 10 Worst Enemies Stephen Strange Has Ever Faced - Bottom of the barrel, hyper-focused top ten list from a site that released 22 "Top X" lists yesterday.
• 15 Superheroes Who Had Supervillain Lovers - That someone even thought to include this in the article is baffling.
• ROGUES' GALLERY: DOCTOR STRANGE'S TOP TEN VILLAINS - Formulaic, repeated, hyper focused top ten videos.
• Clea, the underrated Sorcerer Supreme - An article about a related character that only mentions the subject of the article in relation to the plot.
• MCU speculation with one sentence - "Shuma-Gorath, the Beyonder, Kang the Conqueror, Mephisto, Umar – there are plenty of menaces that occupy other planes of existence than our own just ripe for a massive, on-screen punch-up."
• MCU Speculation with two name drops of no importance,

These have no substance. They're mostly mass produced clickbait. They are being used to source statements that have no actual relevance to the article. They're being given undue weight for the size of the quotes. It's just a smoke and mirror show. There are plenty of comic characters given real attention. This is not such a case. TTN (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh I find it disturbing that you are devoted to deleting an article that you got to pick apart the sources one by one. Good gravy! That isn't all the sources anyway. Both either in the article or not in the article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is how discussions work. I think the keep arguments are horribly weak, so of course I’d attempt to tear them apart. Would you like me to go over the other sources? The only reason I didn’t bother is because I’d be repeating myself. Please show me a source you’d consider substantial. TTN (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have proven nothing in my personal opinion. These are pop culture articles that mention her in either great detail or namedrop. You keep using basis that the articles are stupid. Maybe they are! But they are still sources that the article mentioned. Top x characters can still be good articles to use. There is nothing wrong with them. Namedrops are desperate measures I admit but if they provide info that Nightscream just used than I am not complaining. Potential candidates for MCU are list articles that are used constantly and I still feel they help. Do I like all the sources. No! Stupid articles could of been less in-universe if I had my way. But they are what they are. No need to talk trash about articles. It just sounds like you don't want them to exist so the article can be deleted in your favor. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap, basic sources from sites of dubious editorial merit are not good sources. They are not reliable. Sources that do not mention the character in detail are not relevant to the character. There is no “good enough” mentality for sources. They are either good or they are bad. TTN (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are too reliable. They are examples of sources /coverages that can be used. They are in the inclusion criteria. They represent popular culture despite all the stupid in-universe and crystal balling they sometimes do. Even if they didn't prove enough notability now or if it was a stupid topic. Also deletion should not even be a last resort even if the character is not notable when this many sources are utilized and put in the body of the article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a site is putting out two dozen lists per day, that means the quality of such articles is lacking. There is no way to maintain integrity when you have fifteen different authors scrambling to gather content for dozens of pop culture clickbait per week. If a site is simply name dropping a character, that article is irrelevant. This isn't opinion vs opinion. It's fact that these articles are mass produced clickbait. It's fact that a single mention of a character can in no way constitute significant coverage. TTN (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the addition of new sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability as per the guidelines hasn't been established. I rather doubt that those few Keep proponents claiming that new sources have been added to the article actually reviewed those sources, which either only mention the subject fleetingly (and thus cannot count towards supporting notability), or fail to meet the requirements of WP:V for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. Over on the WP:N talk page, where I asked Jhenderson777 which in the blizzard of sources are sources giving the "significant coverage" to the subject required by the GNG, and which of those sources meet the requirements of WP:V as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," he's so far declined to answer save for launching another ad hominem attack such as he's done here. I invite any Keep proponent to answer those questions.

  I also hope that the closing admin prioritizes policy over headcount, given that arguments like "Let this page stay" and "Minor character meriting a (minor) article" are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia notability criteria. No objection, of course, to merging to the List of Marvel characters, as above. Ravenswing 21:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am back at editing instead of wasting time discussing the same thing. I did no such "ad hominem attack"s as you claim. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you’re unsure of what "ad hominem" attacks are, but seriously? "I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles." "Sounds like you are being oblivious ..." "Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?" "It apparently must be a nuisance to you though." "I understand if English isn't your main language though." "I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it." "If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays." "Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles." "you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds." "Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted." "You are accusing me of doing that on purpose." "Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..." And so on and so on. (By the bye, for someone who's put in thirty-two comments to this AfD, you still haven't answered my questions above: which sources, precisely, provide the subject with "significant coverage" as per the GNG, and which sources, precisely, do you claim to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?) Ravenswing 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These aren’t attacks! Also did you dig up the kind of comments I got that I responded to. No. You are using your own fallacy. An red herring. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles."

That was an opinion. Not an attack.

"Sounds like you are being oblivious ..."

That was no where an insult. I was addressing the editor that I did find sources. Apparently he didn’t see them yet.

"Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?"

The editor was mocking my stance. Also opinion that he was taking it too seriously.

"It apparently must be a nuisance to you though."

That was unserious comment.

"I understand if English isn't your main language though."

I meant no offense. That should have been obvious. I just didn’t understand what he was saying.

"I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it."

Again how is this an attack?

"If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays."

He was. It was kind of stressing me out and making me feel uneasy.

"Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles."

Just a non offensive opinion. Sorry if you feel "attack"ed on it.

"you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds."

He was making me feel uncomfortable. Where was the lie?

"Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted."

I will probably strike this one. I went too far I admit on this one.

"You are accusing me of doing that on purpose."

He was. Just a fact. Not an attack. Also that was more a question. Despite the lack of a question mark instead of period.

"Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..."

I was being baited on. So sometimes the best thing is to write unserious comments of what it sounds like is going on.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as improved, and per potential for further improvement. There are two distinct vectors of potential notability for this character, one being her relationship with Doctor Strange, and the other being her relationship with the Hulk, which crosses certain lines not usually touched in the comics. bd2412 T 01:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one is tricky, and I suspect better sources are out there, but until they're found I can't justify keeping this one. Passing mentions and listicles simply cannot provide the info necessary to pass WP:GNG, even though they may be used to provide info in articles where better sourcing is also present. The discussion about the character potentially appearing in a future movie if WP:CRYSTALBALL, and I will not support moving a non-notable article wholesale into a character list by merging. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's easy to find coverage in works such as the The Supervillain Book and so the topic is notable and should be kept for development per WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT;WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER;WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This character has a lot of coverage. As far as I'm concerned it easily passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching around for sources, didn't find anything not already added to the article. Having that many reliable sources talk about the character I believe proves notability. Some of them have more than others written about the character, and no really long articles of coverage, but the total coverage is enough to convince me the article should be kept. Dream Focus 16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - Reliably sourced article with enough coverage for a Critical Reception section. Instead of going nuclear, maybe someone could flesh the article out or something? Additional sources also wouldn't hurt, though I would like to see less of Comic Book Resources and Cinema Blend in the article. DarkKnight2149 11:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a distinction should be made on CBR articles older than 2016 and articles from 2016 and later. The quality of their content dropped drastically after the site was sold. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is the sheer amount of citations that rely on CBR. We haven't gone overboard (yet), but we should definitely avoid them when adding more citations. DarkKnight2149 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters. Include a short summary with citations to the most reliable sources that exist. If better sourcing emerges later, this could be reconsidered. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find coverage. Passes our notability tests. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. SerTanmay (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Moore[edit]

Jo Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about a living person, who seems to be notable only for one event, so I an nominating this for deletion per WP:BLP1E (the 'Subjects notable only for one event' section of the biography of living people policy). She appears to be only notable for the 9/11-related email and has since retrained as a teacher, so it would seem unnecessary to keep an article on her specifically. The details of what happened can be covered in other articles. We do have quite a few articles on British government special advisors, so maybe I am missing some level of notability that this role confers (some have gone on to have political careers). Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• She is notable for only one event, but the event led to an expression which became useful and is still deployed on relevant occasions, viz: "It's a good day to bury bad news." Her infamous email was an early example of cynical media manipulation, and should be preserved for the historical record as an example of how political advisers were already behaving before the dawning of the age of Fake News.
• This is an interesting AfD and needs some reflection. After researching this a bit, I'm inclined to think that there are useable sources but they aren't basically about her. They're about news management. At present we do have news management but it's a redirect to a rudimentary semi-stub at managing the news. We also have media manipulation#distraction. I think there may be an opportunity to reorganise all this related content in a better way, reusing and refactoring the content in Jo Moore so it's about news management rather than about her personally. At the end of that process, I agree with Carcharoth that Jo Moore should be a redlink; but we've got to preserve attribution until we get there so I wouldn't want to delete it quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to get too off topic, but if anyone participating in this AfD wants to look at other SPAD articles, ones like Lizzie Loudon (who now works for Rory Stewart but you would struggle to learn that from her WP article), that might be useful as well (some SPADs were recently made peers, such as Elizabeth Sanderson, Baroness Sanderson of Welton and Joanna Penn, Baroness Penn, so while controversial in itself, that settles the notability question there). It seems that in general most UK government Special Advisors (recent ones at least) do go on to a career that can be covered by Wikipedia (often as MPs), but some don't. The careers can be a bit up and down until they end up becoming notable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some special advisors go on to become notable. Moore on the other hand engaged in downright unethical activities and was driven from politicis. She was not notable then and is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, by WP:BLP1E. Ralbegen (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT and lack of notability. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP generally. Redirect as per above is fine, but I'd be cautious, since it's unclear if it quite belongs there. Not opposed to this being included in some sort of public relations/media strategy sort of article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 23 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. I believe there is a rough consensus favoring deletion. I also note that WP:PAG based arguments seem strongly weighted towards that end. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Oluwatobiloba Adeyemi[edit]

David Oluwatobiloba Adeyemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is written as though it were an advertisement for subject and his company. Subject of article doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. References provided are just repetitions of themselves and non discuss subject in detail. Fails WP:BASIC & WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ther appears more than enough to meet the GNG here. The uN Idea fair win alone is probably enough for notability. Several of the cited dources are interviews, but contain significant coverage in the editorial voice befoe the start of the Q&A, and there is enough even without any of these. I removed some promotional writing from the article, nd it could use further improvement, but I see no reason to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is no reference provided for subject has in-depth significant coverage in reliable source that establishes notability hence doesn’t scale WP:GNG The only sources I see mostly discuss his work in passing & not him. @DESiegel: if you do find sources that show notability of the subject do provide it at this AFD. Furthermore the article is written as though it were a resume & advertisement. Celestina007 (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have heard a lot about his works and innovations and i personally is impressed by the devotion of a Nigerian youth towards development irrespective of the risks attached. As @DESiegel: as said, the UN idea fair, Leap Africa Fellowship and Eco-E product are enough for notability. Celestina007 i respect your beautiful and very intelligent opinion but you know, "A man is celebrated because of his works, his works define him". This man was given the this priviledge because of his works which led to numerous interview sessions and as we can see indeptly, the sited interview sources contained straight forward significant coverages of the editorial input even before further questioning of the subject. Promotional writings may not have been intentional but since they all have been removed from the article by DESiegel then i believe we can give this a pass as i see no reason to delete.

Perhaps the writer was overwhelmed by the conduct, works and input to community and national development by a 22 year old who was once considered a failure by his class teacher. Hence, I see no reason to delete. Teebabalola (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG and even if Adeyemi did meet notability standards it is clearly a WP:PROMO article (Keep vote above highlights likely WP:COI issues) that needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it should be noted that Teebabalola & Diesigel are yet to produce in this AFD reliable sources that discuss subject of AFD with in-depth and establishes his notability. AFD’s arent about how many keeps or delete votes but substantiating your votes with reliable sources (if you claim he/she is notable enough for inclusion) I am upholding GPL93 view; there isn’t enough WP: SIGCOV to show subject of our discussion is notable yet. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:RS, and WP:TNT. I don't see how anything the subject has done is beyond what thousands of other business people have done as well, every day. It's not entirely clear what product or service he's created to improve other people's lives; marketing doesn't count. Almost every human being has been told by at least one teacher that they'd be a failure -- that's a trope, not a claim to notability. The sourcing is if dubious provenance. It's so poorly written ("his grandpa...", what specifically is he marketing) that an entire re-write will be necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian. I must also point out that none of the awards the subject won are notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:05, 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in cricket[edit]

2004 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Five Year in cricket articles which are now essentially redundant to the International cricket in season articles, specifically International cricket in 2004–05, International cricket in 2005, International cricket in 2005–06, International cricket in 2006, International cricket in 2006–07, International cricket in 2007, International cricket in 2007–08, International cricket in 2009–10, International cricket in 2010 and International cricket in 2010–11. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2005 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It follows the notability guidelines, much like other [Year] in [Sport] articles. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeepNikita/Archive#19_November_2019 for Caker18. Störm (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This agrees with MOS:LIST criteria. A number of notable topics are part of this list. This is an effective way to chronicle this information on Wikipedia. It may be difficult to have single articles for each of these items, although there are independent articles linked to these. These are also a good way to aggregate and concentrate this information in one place and under one comprehensive title for each page listed above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the responses I am withdrawing my ivote. I might Ivote later, after more scrutiny of the articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per nominator. These are redundant parts of an incomplete series and I think they breach WP:IINFO as lists created for the sake of creating lists and then never developed individually or completed as a series. I don't believe they add value and updating them would be a nightmare. The international cricket series is sufficient for listing the events. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as WP also acts as chronicle, or almanack. So, it is useful to have articles by year as they encompasses whole cricket i.e. domestic, and international. Störm (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Calendar years and domestic seasons do not match up in the southern hemisphere. "Events of calendar year 2004", "Events of the 2004-05 [X country if necessary/wanted] season", and (for example) "Indian cricket in 2004-05", would refer to two different periods of time. If anything, surely the logic should be the other way round? Being an incomplete series does not make something intrinsically useless. Also, "international cricket in 2004" and "domestic cricket in 2004" (not that I would set up an article on the latter without slightly tidier article names) would refer to two completely different things. Bobo. 23:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and WP:TNT. It's worth noting that these are stand-alone articles, started with good intentions, but then left to decay. 2004 has one reference. 2005 has no references. 2006 has one ref. 2007 has lots of refs (38), but apparently nothing of note happened after 13th June. 2010 has no refs and the page stops at 25th April. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging or merging to either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Caker18 succinctly sums up why they should be kept. StickyWicket (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia:Notability guidlines are satisfied. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn under speedy keep criteria 1 (withdrawn by nominator) - based on Enos733's findings, I'll concede that external coverage of the subject exists that I didn't turn up in my BEFORE search, and the other delete voter (Bearcat) consented to closing as keep. (non-admin closure) creffett (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Baker (politician)[edit]

Frank Baker (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local politician. WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that municipal politicians aren't inherently notable, and while Boston is a major city, the article only consists (after copyvio was removed) of the fact that he's a representative. Also not seeing any significant coverage in a BEFORE search. creffett (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. To be fair, Boston is a large and important enough city that we would very likely accept substantive and well-sourced articles about its city councillors — but this article literally just states that he exists, without saying anything else about him at all, and single-sources that existence to his primary source profile on the city council's own website, which is not a notability-supporting source. The notability test for local politicians is the ability to write and reliably source an article with some actual substance to it, not just the ability to verify his existence with a single self-published "staff" profile — so if somebody can tackle writing an article that actually features some detail about his political career and some quality reliable sources to support it, then that would be different, but this as written is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely keep A quick search does pull some reliable sources of his career, from his proposal to change the length of the council term to his position on safe injection sites, to his position on toy guns. However, like Bearcat mentions, there is a bunch of work that should be done to develop a narrative beyond "they exist." --Enos733 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Enos733, interesting, I didn't find those in my initial search (I found plenty of Frank Bakers, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job narrowing my search). Based on that, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD and re-tag it as "sources exist but aren't cited" - @Bearcat: would you be okay with me closing this as speedy-keep criteria 1 (withdrawn by nominator)? Technically the criteria requires that there not be delete votes, but based on your "delete without prejudice" vote I figure you might be okay with that outcome. creffett (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I should have added "and I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can tackle fixing this before it gets closed". Aye from me. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Will close shortly. creffett (talk) 02:49, 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. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Totem Pole Season 1[edit]

The Totem Pole Season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a YouTube reality series. Online mentions outside YouTube are to social media sites. Mindmatrix 19:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also The Totem Pole Season 2, which has the same issues. Mindmatrix 19:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing resembling coverage, let alone significant coverage. hewhoamareismyself 20:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this YouTube season; the fact that it is inspired strengthens my delete choice. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funmi Omoyele[edit]

Funmi Omoyele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a non notable ballon designer. Subject of article doesn’t qualify as per WP:BASIC & WP:GNG as she hasn’t received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't fulfill GNG requirements. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not find enough substantive third-party coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He makes balloons. The sources are unreliable and insignificant. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 22 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 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zone X[edit]

Zone X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The brand is not notable enough. There are very few (if any) press mentions for it. At best it should be redirected to Imperial Tobacco. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: or should it be redirected to Skruf Snus that manufactures it? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is entirely generic product. No standalone notability, so no need for redirect. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 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 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins F.C. (Port Harcourt) 2008/09 season[edit]

Dolphins F.C. (Port Harcourt) 2008/09 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pretty useless and technically fails WP:NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article below because it also lacks notability and has nothing substantial or worth improving:

• 2014 FC Erchim season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't know how this has slipped through the cracks as a page on the wiki. So good find by the nominator with finding these pages. In terms of notability, this does fail WP:NFOOTY as the nominator pointed out so. HawkAussie (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and WP:NSEASONS. FYI @KingSkyLord, HawkAussie, and No Great Shaker: please note that WP:NFOOTY relates to biographies only, not season articles, so it cannot fail it... GiantSnowman 18:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:NFOOTY NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, NFOOTY relates to players and managers, so it is impossible for an article on a season to fail it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ChrisTheDude Thanks for pointing that out NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 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 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Critic's The Wall[edit]

Nostalgia Critic's The Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Funny article, and yes the video is terrible... however. There is nothing here that shows this is actually notable. No reliable sources are used in the article. IMDB, Amazon, RateYourMusic. And a search shows that none of them exist. There is also already a paragraph at Nostalgia Critic that covers everything here without the cruft, although it doesn't use any reliable sources either. So this can probably be deleted. --Quiz shows 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As bad as it may be, it's surely not notable enough to have it's own standalone article. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While the low rating on Rate Your Music and a negative review by Anthony Fantano have contributed to the notoriety of both the video and its associated album, barely any other reliable sources exist for the project to warrant its own article, not helped by the fact that most of the negative reactions are coming from Internet users rather than any actual critics. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:16, 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 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Jar Ltd[edit]

Candy Jar Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page was created, and has mainly been edited, by a SPA: it appears to be promoting a small company which has no significant coverage to demonstrate its notability, and if we disregard the passing mentions (ostensibly plugs) on a handful of other pages, it's an Orphan. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They make in-house videos and ads, and just got into the self-publishing book business. I remind you all that we are not a free web host, but a charity, responsible to the New York Attorney General to justify deductions. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We are not the yellow pages delete as WP:PROMOTIONAL. Wm335td (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Kadian (1998)[edit]

Vicky Kadian (1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, having only a couple of filmed roles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky (actor). ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:12, 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. There also was a merge suggestion but if no sources exist for the to-be-merged content that makes the objections grounded in WP:Verifiability a weighty counterargument. If folks find sources later they can add new content to the Orangeville, Ontario article at their leisure, subject to discussion on its talk page and all applicable policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Orangeville, Ontario[edit]

List of mayors of Orangeville, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of mayors of a small town, not reliably sourced as accurate. The town has a population of just 28K today, so its mayors would not generally qualify for standalone biographical articles -- literally the only two people here who actually have articles both have them for going on to hold much more important political roles at the provincial level rather than for being mayors of this town per se (and, in fact, even those two people were also left unlinked in this list until I caught them just now by searching to see if anybody in the list actually had articles at all, because until I did that the only wikilinks present in the entire list were to the town's article and the general concept article on mayors.)
And on the sourcing piece, there are just five footnotes present here, none of which are solid ones: one is being used solely in the infobox to verify the mayor's current pay grade, which is not significant information; three are WP:ROUTINE local sources being used solely to verify the names of three of the most recent mayors, with 44 of the 47 mayors still completely unsourced; and one is a local history book which certainly mentions the names of a few of the mayors, but not all of them, and is actually being used here solely to footnote the phrase "dates estimated" at the very bottom of the list rather than any of the actual content. And furthermore, there are six years in the 1960s for which the mayor is simply listed as "unknown" (further demonstrating that the history book doesn't list all of the mayors!), and while somebody recently posted to WP:CANTALK with the name of a person who served as mayor for one of those six years, we still can't locate any sources that verify anything about the other five years.
In other words, this is an inadequately sourced and incomplete list of almost entirely non-notable people -- and I can't think of any compelling reason why keeping a list of mostly non-notable smalltown mayors would be critically important enough to override all the other problems with this. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note AFD is not cleanup. A WP:BEFORE should be done to verify these mayors' existences, especially in places like ProQuest and Newspapers.com. ミラP 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those have already been checked, and most of the mayors remain unverifiable because neither of those databases contain any newspapers where regular coverage of municipal politics in Orangeville would be expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to verrify the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Orangeville, Ontario or Delete per nom with the caveat that this wikitable can be undeleted if desired to merge into Orangeville, Ontario. Doug Mehus T·C 00:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the problem with these sorts of delete !votes is that Bearcat has already summarised everything I'd like to say. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Orangeville, Ontario, this article is not notable due to the towns population, however I think it has a place under government section on Orangeville's main page.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Yeah, that was my first preference, but it seemed unlikely given the supporting rationale Bearcat presented. So, I copied the list and pasted it on Talk:Orangeville, Ontario for future merging if this closes as delete (provided someone can source the information). Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per previous arguments. Another non-notable listcruft fork from a notable topic. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails GNG and the list substantively fails WP:V. The page is 95% unsourced which effectively precludes a merge. Article title is not a realistic search term so a redirect is not a reasonable alternative. Sadly that leaves us with one choice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ad Orientem, I disagree that the fact that it is currently unsource precludes a merge. A merge could still take place and, if it doesn't happen within a reasonable period of time (say 2-3 months), then it would be renominated for deletion with prejudice. Doug Mehus T·C 06:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't keep unsourced material on the basis of "maybe we will find sources one day." And we don't add unsourced material to articles. That's a fairly carved in stone no no. WP:V is policy and there is no three month waiting period. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:25, 24 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 NorthEast United FC#Supporters. Consensus is clearly against keeping and appears to be roughly in favor of redirecting. Per ATD and CHEAP this appears the best course. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander Brigade[edit]

Highlander Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable group of supporters. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice of another better article being created. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NorthEast United FC#Supporters where it's already mentioned and referenced. No need for a separate article. GiantSnowman 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page Highlander Brigade, as substantial source and reference material has been provided. Bin 20:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the below references.^[1][2] The references state that Highlander Brigade are the supporters'group of NorthEast United FC. Bin 04:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A number of changes has been made in the Highlander Brigade page and I hope those are sufficient to keep the page away from deletion. Further references to justify the cause are given below.^[3][4] Bin 08:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been entirely rewritten , referenced, and significantly expanded since User:discospinster nominated it, User:SportingFlyer voted to delete and User:GiantSnowman voted to redirect. Two of the references do show notability. one and two. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced. Four sources - one from the group itself, one from the club, and two from questionable local sources, none of which show significant coverage to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how they'd be described as local. One covers the entire Northeast India, which is eight different states, and a population of over 40 million people! That's not local. And the other is national - in a nation of over 1.3 billion people; these aren't village papers or websites here. I'm surprised these sources are all in English though - User:BinBoro, are there no sources in other languages? The language itself doesn't matter for Wikipedia, it's more about the quality and how in-depth the source is. Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four sources link to bloody Instagram, and Fisto appears to cover anyone who wants to cover them, meaning there's no editorial oversight. The NE News Now article is about a FIFA video game event the supporter group held, so WP:GNG there is very... arguable. We're not there yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still, with the improvements, User:SportingFlyer, how is this a delete, and not at least a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the first !voter here, I don't really care if it's redirected if there's a proper target, it's even nearing the WP:GNG line but I don't think it has crossed it yet. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, User:SportingFlyer. I'm just a bit surprised that User:Fenix down relisted and noted that consensus is leaning towards delete, when you are the only one of five to comment who endorsed deletion. Nfitz (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm new to the process of AFD, I would like to understand what are we trying to establish here. Is it Highlander Brigade is genuine? If it is the question then Highlander Brigade is a genuine and notable group. The group has 9.2+ follows on Facebook[10], 5.6k+ on Instagram[11] and some 1.1k+ on [12]. The regular viewers of the Indian Super League will know Highlander Brigade is mentioned and talked about in every NorthEast United pre-match discussion on the Star network. But for the given references, one is directly from the club itself, two is given to show or prove the claims in three and four is an article from Fisto Sports, a national sports news website and I don't believe they cover everyone for the sake of it.Bin(talk) 02:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BinBoro: We need articles which pass our WP:GNG general notability guideline. It's not enough that sources exist, it's not enough that we can verify something exists, we need multiple sources which show secondary, independent, reliable groups have adequately covered the topic. Fisto Sports FAQ says they'll write an article on pretty much anything, see here, so we can't use them as a reliable source. The article also needs a rewrite as much of the prose isn't encyclopaedic - it feels like what the group would write about itself and isn't adequately sourced. I'd be fine draftifying this until more sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see how Fisto is a problem. The Northeast one is good though. I'm surprised there isn't any coverage in Assamese. Significant media coverage is what we are looking for. 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I understand @SportingFlyer:. The News Mill website and Khelnow, a leading sports news website, has written about the agitation of the Highlander Brigade towards the club NorthEast United FC. The sources are given here.^[1][2]Further Highlander Brigade is mentioned in a tweet from the Indian Super League^[3], the league in which NorthEast United play and by NorthEast United in a YouTube video^[4].There are not many Assamese news papers online, most of them still have paper newspapers.Bin(talk) 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A few articles by leading newspapers about Highlander Brigade: 1.Deccan Chronicle mentions Highlander Brigade in an article^[1]. 2. The Assam Tribune writes about Highlander Brigade hosted soccer meet.^[2]. 3. Dailyhunt mentions Highlander Brigade alongside Blue Pilgrims in an article^[3]Bin(talk) 04:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per GiantSnowman. Current sourcing certainly does not indicate subject meeting WP:GNG but what information can be retained would be useful for the club's article. None of the provided sources demonstrate WP:GNG: two of them are just instagram posts, and one is about the group supporting a FIFA video game event. The Fisto article is interesting but similar coverage from more reliable sources would help establish the subject as notable independent of the club. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: Please look into the following references by Deccan Chronicle: one, The Assam Tribune: two and Dailyhunt: three (BinBoro (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am not seeing these sources fulfilling the need for significant coverage. The first source does not address the group in detail. The second source is sending me to a video of a protest, so I'm not sure if that's what was intended but I have my doubts that would constitute significant coverage. The third source is a passing mention of the group in the context of the larger article. I am also unsure about the reliability of these sources. Jay eyem (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NorthEast United FC#Supporters where it's already mentioned and referenced. per Giantsnowman. Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 22 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 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Watkins Jr[edit]

Eddie Watkins Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a background musican on various recordings does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is the subject merely a session musician? Bearian (talk) 18:32, 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 Night Mail. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'The Night Mail'[edit]

'The Night Mail' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's just a poem; not an encyclopedia article. CoconutOctopus talk 14:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Night Mail as the poem was written for that film, and is mentioned in the lead.----Pontificalibus 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Rocky 734 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pontificalibus. Mccapra (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as non-notable poem that is relevant to the film it was written for. No particular information needs to be preserved since the article already gives some mentions of it. All sources I can find are blogs or lyrics sites, or they only give a short mention of the poem. (If they copy-paste the poem but don't elaborate on it beyond a single sentence, it still fails WP:SIGCOV.) UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Night Mail. No need to prolong this AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 23 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 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Burleson[edit]

Ed Burleson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Fails general notability guidelines.Rocky 734 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PROMO as reads like an advert which isn't surprising considering it is mainly a copy of his spotify page but as this article is quite old its hard to judge which came first, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't toured nationally. The only evidence of "touring" is in one area of Texas. No major record label. If anyone can find another way to prove WP:MUSICBIO, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like a promotional piece and provides no sourced content to indicate that WP:MUSICBIO is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:24, 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 Cassette tape#Flaws. czar 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bandsalat[edit]

Bandsalat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a German to English dictionary which is what this article is. The term "Bandsalat" is not in ordinary usage in the English language so this article is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. The only substantive content relating to untangling the "tangle" with a pencil eraser and the associated image could be moved into the cassette tape article if some editor felt it was not undue. Tom94022 (talk) 18:03, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cassette_tape#Flaws, where it is mentioned. We should keep in mind the cautions of WP:RFOREIGN, but I think the term is well-known enough among cassette tape enthusiasts that this is OK as a redirect as a plausible search term. "Well-known enough" is a judgment call and deletion could be reasonably recommended, too. Probably tape salad should have the same redirect target. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 06:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I more or less agree with the above. Expand Cassette_tape#Flaws to better describe "tape salad" with an image. Redirect "tape salad" there but Bandsalat need not be mentioned nor redirected. Tom94022 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I originally started this article because I heard the term used in a podcast and when I went to go look it up the only definition I could find was the German article. It's apparently been in use in the industry for a while. The_stuart (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any usage at all in the English speaking industry. Tom94022 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect: WP:NOTDIC, non-notable term, or redirect per Mark. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested - seems to pop up just about sufficiently to expect that someone might actually look for the term [13]. And create tape salad as an equivalent redirect while we're at it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are cheap and there seems to be just enough to suggest this is a plausible search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:44, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earther[edit]

Earther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

First off, i'm going to find myself a exceptionally large whale to whack myself with, for closing the last XfD. I realised I made a mistake, and the lack of notability still stands. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is evidence of notability. It is covered by notable media outlets such as Fast Company and the Columbia Journalism Review. The lorax (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gizmodo, if not already included there. The main url www.earther.com currently points to a subdomain of Gizmodo, which handily matches my merge !vote: earther.gizmodo.com. It is clearly a sub-project of Gizmodo, and that is where it also belongs on wiki. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. There's RS coverage in at least three sources (Fast Company, Columbia Journalism Review, and SAPO), and The Smithsonian Magazine covers stories Earther reports on, as seen here and here. --Kbabej (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have updated my !vote with strikethrough. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, apologies everyone on duplicate websites notification above, i have added this afd to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources found by Kbabej prove notability. Dream Focus 16:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dostluk[edit]

E-Dostluk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails general notability check.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent sources with sigcov. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 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. ST47 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Visit[edit]

The Official Visit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and doesn't establish WP:Notability; a plot summary is already present in List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. I originally added a ((notability)) flag in 2008, which got removed in 2012 for no apparent reason. (This AfD is a test case for all the other episodes for this series.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful delete - As much as it pains me to vote delete on this, no, this is basically WP:ALLPLOT and hence fails WP:NOT. There is no evidence that this episode (or any of the other episodes, which could be nominated together with this one) is notable independently of Yes Minister, and as such it also fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't see a wikia dedicated to this show, so I am not sure if there is any other website that hosts a better plot summary for this episode (Series). But WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep this... maybe transwiki to Wikibooks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- in regards to future AFDs, I'd be wary of lumping every episode together. Certain things (for example, the special between the two series, would probably receive enough individual media coverage for being out of the ordinary. Individual episodes might also receive differential levels of coverage. matt91486 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is AfD concensus that (most of) the articles shouldn't exist, then I'll probably just redirect the other episode articles to the LoE, citing this AfD and its rationale. If someone wants to revive the articles by solving the AfD concerns, fine, but nothing has been improved for 11 years, so... *shrugs* – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without sources, there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These expanded Plot-articles for Yes Minister should probably be merged into the main article as shorter plots (eg less than 10 lines per norm); would be a shame to lose this material until such a merger was completed? Also, probably shouldn’t delete individual articles until a group-solution has been decided. Britishfinance (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Britishfinance. 4meter4 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sgeureka could re-nom the series (who are all in the same shape), and propose they be merged into the main Yes Minister article that should be re-done as a proper "Series" article with 10-line plot summaries for each episode, E.g. like this Chernobyl (miniseries)? There is too much plot here, but many Yes Minister enthusiasts (myself included), like to have a way to remind themselves of what happened in each one? Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with redirecting all of them to the LoE, and interested editors can salvage what they want from the ep article history. However, I do not support leaving the articles up for longer - eleven years have been long enough. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT#PLOT applies. Second choice redirect to the main article or an article about the seasons, if existent. What we should not do is leave them under a merge tag for another decade doing nothing. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the list of episodes page. There's no good reason to delete content where there's a valid merge target as an alternative to deletion. There's no real, pressing issue that militates towards getting rid of this content now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Definately not Delete given the content here. These are useful material for creating shorter plots as part of a larger topic article. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes is already doing. The plot summaries are already fine and per WP:UNDUE don't need more than one or two summary sentences extra, which you won't find in the ep articles. A plot reminder from e.g. IMDb can help here as well, so it's not like deletion would hurt. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just one line summaries - way too short. We want the main article to look like this: Chernobyl (miniseries). This content of this article (and all others in the series) should be written down into a 10-line summary per Chernobyl; otherwise, I would not delete the article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above discussion, specifically FOARP. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least find a way to keep the plot summary, it would be a shame for so much hardwork to be wasted and the pages are useful. As long as the serise as a whole is notable then keeping each episode page like many other shows have.Zubin12 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly respect that an editor put work into this article, but that is not really a good reason to keep something. The final part falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some shows have episodes that received enough coverage for individual articles, while others do not have this. Such comparisons are not particularly useful for this particular discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. Unfortunately, and as noted above, there are already short summaries of the episodes in the main article/list. Large scale merging seems likely to bloat the target article. However this is a viable search term and would make a good redirect. That would also satisfy some of the concerns of various editors with respect to preserving the material in the editing history of the redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 24 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. This isn't the most enthusiastic consensus, but it is there. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Mann[edit]

Jen Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are a couple decent sources, but overall it is not enough to establish GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the several sources, the prize, and solo exhibits in major art scenes allows her to meet the technical factors for creative persons. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: It meets minimum main notability guidelines, as for minimum main general notability one needs to be a award winner we cannot neglect it. Rocky 734 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had never heard of the "Kingston Prize" before this. Upon looking it up, it turns out it is a private prize founded by two private individuals. These days it is easy to do this and say you are "Canada's premier prize for portraiture". That said, it has garnered some coverage and seems reliable. However I see this as pretty much the artist's only claim to fame.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Being an "award winner" doesn't automatically make someone notable. It comes down to the prize itself and in this case it doesn't count for that much. That said, CBC, Design Art Magazine, Artoronto, Vice, several things at Juxtapoz, Create Magazine, Hi-Fructose, nss magazine... there seems to be some halfway decent coverage. Some of these I'm including without entirely knowing they're reliable, though. I also acknowledge that several of these are interviews, which don't help the article that much but do contribute to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 23 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 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nana shogi[edit]

Nana shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This, and the other two pages in the nomination, is a micro-sized shogi variant that I doubt is notable. I can find only the creator's website and BoardGameGeek, plus a handful of vaguely promotional sites, as sources. I considered merging into Shogi variant but IMO the games are already covered in enough depth there and the content of the articles is poorly sourced descriptions of the rules.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Bushi shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gufuu shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reyk _YO! 12:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable fancruft. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Istehaar[edit]

Istehaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This unreferenced article is on am Indian term which appears to be just another word for classifieds and is a WP:DICDEF. A search for sources does not turn up any coverage. Whpq (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not dictionary.--Krishna's flute (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely unsourced dicdef. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 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. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerax[edit]

Hammerax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I know this article recently survived AfD (nominated for being too promotional) but there were only 3 !voters who responded and said that being overly promotional was a job for cleanup. I'm nominating it again for a lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are 6 refs in the article, 2 of which are from the website, 2 are sales pitches for their cymbals, one is a blog and one is a mention-in-passing. My WP:BEFORE turns up a lot of references but they're either discussing the product, rely on information provided by the company/CEO/partner or are mentions-in-passing - I've yet to find a source that providings significant coverage and in-depth information on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD closed exactly three days ago. Refer to WP:DELAFD WP:DISRUPTIVE renomination. Once notable always notable WP:NTEMP WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD WP:NOTCLEANUP Passes WP:PRODUCT Music Gear review prodcut Mentioned in Drum Magazine Drum Product Review Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the previous participants and XfD closer. @Fma12: @Rocktober2018: @Dom Kaos: @Tone:

• Keep No reason for a do-over. Reasons cited in last nomination are sufficient. WP:Preserve No compliance with WP:Before, which mandates that we are supposed to act on what the article could become, not what it was when nominated. Indeed, the cited sources NOW are ample to demonstrate WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs some edition, not to be deleted.- Fma12 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not surprising, the always !vote to Keep editors from the Rescue Squad continue to !vote as a group without even trying to address the concerns expressed in the nomination. I'm scratching my head over how WP:PRODUCT is supposed to help establish the notability of organizations - it is only to address whether an article about an organization should include information on that organization's products. I'd go so far as to say that these editors (the Rescue Squaddies) are emerging as extremely disruptive editors in the AfD process. Just as with any article at AfD, the issue can be quickly resolved by linking to (any) references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. Where are the references? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a business that makes products.

The rest of your post is mere Argumentum ad hominen. I will not dignify it further. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to references to establish notability please. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability marginally established by [14] and [15] and taken over the top by recent keep result. Because of the uncivil environment, I will not be watchlisting this page and will not be responding to any comments about my !vote here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for providing links. The topic is the company not any of their products so what we require is significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Your first link to Drummer Cafe contains nothing at all about the company itself and entire article is based on a video posted by the company and includes a comment from the company president. It is churnalism. It fails all of the criteria for establishing notability. Your second link to Music Radar is a review of one of the company's products and contains nothing about the company itself, failing SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 22 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) 13:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muller & Phipps[edit]

Muller & Phipps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - run of the mill courier that is probably one of hundreds in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vardø Framtid[edit]

Vardø Framtid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The newspaper is defunct, and not relevant, searching for it yields no results and cites only a single source. Submitting for Wikipedia:Notability Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded the article with relevant material from Norwegian WP. Doremo (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and Øst-Finnmark to Communist Party of Norway#Press as((r to related topic)) (?) and leaving cats more or less intact. A weekly circulation of 750 copies; limited lifespan and scope and impact; and limited independent sigcov (Friheten is the CPN national paper) means GNG isn't met, but it would be reasonable to include them at the proposed section per WP:ATD, particularly given this one's founder. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a nice short article, with sources that I can't read but look to me to be sufficient. And it's about a newspaper, for which in general it is often difficult to find coverage about them from other publications, as is covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, an essay about notability of newspapers which User:Peteforsyth recently notified me about. In general we need for Wikipedia to cover newspapers; i think we should be a gazetteer about them, because we need ourselves to know about their qualities as sources. Here, it is useful to have this article to inform any perspective about usage of this newspaper as a source, anywhere else. ("Oh, okay, that was a short-lived commie rag, perhaps a good source about X but not likely to be objective about Y"). And again it is a good, interesting short article ( i like it). --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after Doremo's expansion and do not in any way merge, the #Press section would be severely bloated. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 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.