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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgii Speakman[edit]

Georgii Speakman (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)

Poorly sourced article that has been the subject of WP:COI and WP:SPA editing since its creation. She does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search shows plenty of PR stuff but nothing much more substantial. Melcous (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's interesting that the article only defines her as an actress, despite the fact that she doesn't seem to have done any acting for almost a decade. She currently seems to be a businessperson living in LA (maybe an earlier version of the article mentioned that), but the only sources for that are PR or interviews as mentioned above. Not enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR. Gargleafg (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Spencer-Thomas[edit]

Ivor Spencer-Thomas (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)

Promotional article. Not finding anything like enough to pass WP:GNG in the citations or anywhere else online or via Google Books etc. Edwardx (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not seeing how it can be a promotional article, given he died 18 years ago! What's it promoting exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The tone, style and lack of sources suggest that it is promotional. Promotional content is much more of an issue for BLPs, but people do sometimes start articles on their ancestors and other dead relatives. It was started in 2007, so subject was only dead for 6 years at that point. The article creator has edited Owen Spencer-Thomas, also up for deletion, who I presume is Ivor's son. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really promotional then. Just personal interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Edwardx (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from the promotional tone (or, I guess, we can just call it non-neutral), there simply aren't enough sources for this to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Gargleafg (talk) 01:23, 24 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad (musician)[edit]

Konrad (musician) (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 WP:NMUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - A few sources listed, but otherwise non-notable and the page creator may have a connection with the artist. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or Improve. It lacks enough references as is and I could not find anything in Google news, but also the name is too common to do proper searching. However, being on a record label meets at least some notability guideline. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:41, 26 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Sloboda Užice season[edit]

2015–16 Sloboda Užice 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)

This fails WP:NSEASONS as the Serbian First League wasn't a professional league until the following season. I was also going to nominate the 2016-17 article but that would fail as the league was professional by then.

I would also like to nominate for the reason that I mentioned above plus the fact there is also going under WP:PRIMARY.

2014–15 Sloboda Užice season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep professionalism isn't a requirement for season articles, just WP:GNG (see university seasons in the USA) - they were in the top flight, and while there's too much referenced to the team's website, there's other references as well so WP:PRIMARY isn't an issue either. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically no they wern't as they were in the second division of Serbian football with the Serbian SuperLiga being the top division of the country. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edited out an expletive but wanted to note an expletive was uttered) you're right - forgot the Super League was above the Prva Liga. Makes it more marginal. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 09:26, 23 October 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Motors[edit]

Atom Motors (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)

Only sources are LinkedIn and first-party, fails WP:GNG. Only other source I could find is this, which is only one source. If you find any other RS, I will probably withdraw. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:G11, the article was created by an editor who's username matches that of one of the companies founders and who's only other edits are to work Atom Motors into other articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Page has been speedily deleted now. Didn't know that the author was a serial advertiser. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was move to Draft:Ashley Maynard-Brewer. Some people directly suggested this, others went for keeping, others thought the NFOOTY requirements cause more harm than good and need re-evaluating. In all cases, a move to draft preserves the content while also satisfying concerns about minimal quality / notability requirements for biographies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Maynard-Brewer[edit]

Ashley Maynard-Brewer (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The EFL Cup match against Swansea U-21 is not a match between two fully professional teams. Simione001 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fair nomination given the failure of NFOOTY, but enough out there for GNG in my opinion: [1], [2], [3] - WP:THREE. Decent amount of sustained coverage regarding usually routine news, given they are just 20, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. R96Skinner (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify just a bit too soon and much of the coverage presented is routine - applying the ten-year test WP:10YT, if his football career ended today, we wouldn't have an article on him in ten years. SportingFlyer T·C 02:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SKennedy157 He has played a professional game for Charlton Athletic See match report here.Report He therefore qualifies for a page as he is likely to go out on loan to other professional and semi-professional clubs in the future gaining further football experience. Seems pointless to remove a page that is likely to be remade in the future.

• He played against a U21 team, which consensus says does not count toward WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SKennedy157 While it was an U21 team it has counted in all players official first team stats for those who have played in the EFL Trophy and has been included as a first team start in official records. See Soccerbase link here [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.140.14 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SKennedy157 Also the EFL Trophy - despite allowing U21 teams to play in it - is a fully professional competition in the English Football League system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.140.14 (talk • contribs)

• That's fine and true, but we require as part of WP:NFOOTBALL a showing that a player played in a game between two fully professional teams. Swansea U21 are not fully professional, sorry. Also, it's helpful if you sign your posts instead of bolding your user name - you can do this by typing the ~ character four times after your post. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - doesn't meet NFOOTBALL and not quite convinced by GNG (yet). Draftifying allows article improvement/expansion for it to be notable and moved back in due course. GiantSnowman 09:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is time to end the absurdity of making people notable from playing in one match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), then. An individual AfD isn't the place to vent your dislike for current consensus/guidelines et al, as you know. If you feel this article should be deleted per GNG, then cool, but NFOOTY itself cannot be questioned as this article does pass it. R96Skinner (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't, that's the very reason why the article was brought to AfD in the first place. The player has not played in a fully pro game therefore he doesn't meet NFOOTY and that's why the article was nominated for deletion! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies! I was looking at a few AfDs, got my wires crossed... not sure why John is mentioning the one game then. Quick spot that, ChrisTheDude! Thanks. :) R96Skinner (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R96Skinner, ChrisTheDude, and Johnpacklambert: - pursuant to the above, I have initiated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal: Scrap the "one appearance" rule in favor of two mundane appearances or one unusual/remarkable appearance. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleax[edit]

Aleax (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)

Minor, non-notable fictional creature. Aside from the handful of primary sources already here, there really isn't much out there regarding this one. Searching for sources brings up a few unrelated things with the same name, but no reliable sources discussing this. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 17:21, 25 October 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, non-notable BLP. Note that I am therefore moving the now-unambiguous Mark Lindquist (sculptor) to this title. bd2412 T 00:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindquist[edit]

Mark Lindquist (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)

My name is Mark and I am the subject of this article. I’m requesting it be deleted. I am not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines as I was only a locally elected official and also no longer serve in that capacity. The page has been used over the last few years as a political platform by someone prosecuted by my former office. While I appreciate someone apparently finds me worthy to put on Wikipedia, the article doesn’t appear to follow Wikipedia guidelines. As such, I request as a courtesy that the article about me be deleted. MarkLindq (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as a note, the platform has been used by both those heavily against and in favour of Mark Lindquist. This has nothing to do with his notability, but it's a relevant point as to the BLP aspects of the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 - @MarkLindq: last time the discussion decided you were notable by cutting a Gordian knot and sidestepping your position and related controversy - you are notable (by Wikipedia's use of the word) for being an author. The other content is included, but is secondary. I suspect this discussion will come down to whether it's felt that your desire, as the article's subject, is enough to warrant article deletion despite at least some level of WP:NAUTHOR/author notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete county prosecutors are not default notable. The coverage of him is not enough to show notability, and there is no good reason to have super indepth coverage of the debates over what devisces are public records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd argue that this is a subject on the cusp of notability but not quite there. I agree with the above comment that the coverage is (1) not sufficient for notability and (2) unnecessary in its scope. Gargleafg (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject of the article, being a relatively unknown non-public figure, requests its deletion, so this request should be fulfilled. Utopes (talk) 00:26, 27 October 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 One Life to Live. Tone 20:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mendorra[edit]

Mendorra (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 currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable locale within the series, and though many of the citations are for plot, there are a few from external sources like TV Guide that assert general notability. I'll take a look and see if these sources are being used to their fullest extent, etc.— TAnthony^Talk 20:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought, Redirect to One Life to Live. There is adequate mention of the fictional country there, including related citations.— TAnthony^Talk 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to One Life to Live. Maybe the current Production section can be merged there, but there is only one mention of Mendorra in OLtL, so merging may be excessive. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:25, 26 October 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. bd2412 T 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Nogueira[edit]

Felipe Nogueira (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)

In 2010 and 2010, the player had 9 appearances in the Brazilian regional league Campeonato Mineiro, which is listed at WP:FPL, and one appearance in the Copa do Brasil. Aside from that, the rest of the player's career appears to have been spent in 4th-tier, non-FPL-listed US and Brazilian leagues. Despite technically meeting NFOOTY, I can find no WP:GNG-satisfying sources. We don't appear to have any source material from which to write an article, other than statistics websites. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 19:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 20:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I have concerns about Brazilian regional leagues being considered fully-pro, and in the absence of any substantive sourcing he cannot be considered notable. GiantSnowman 09:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We could have this conversation all day about notability, but the fact is, as it stands, some Brazilian state leagues are professional, and Felipe Nogueira has made 9 appearances in a professional league. If this page is deleted, there would be hundreds of pages for Brazilian players that would need to be deleted too, let alone all of the players who have made one or two appearances in pro leagues or for a lower-ranked FIFA nation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not 100% familiar with how Brazilian leagues are technically classified. I was able to find a few sources that reference Nogueira directly (Announcing his retirement, going on loan to Guarani, and declining to take an assistant coaching position with Uberaba). It's not a lot but it's something. There are also other sources if you search his name along with the other teams he's played for. My lack of familiarity with Brazilian leagues keeps from voting definitively on this one, however. But maybe those sources will inform others who know more than me? Gargleafg (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Article about footballer who spent much of his career with semi-professional clubs, but appears to have played a significant amount of games in the Campeonato Mineiro (top-tier league for Minas Gerais state). The league includes a few very popular clubs from Belo Horizonte, and the league is covered well in the Brazilian media, particularly within the state (although less so than the Carioca or Paulista championships). I'm not certain it's at the same status because there are several teams outside of Belo Horizonte that appear to have a much smaller following. That said, I found plenty of routine coverage, mostly in media based in Minas Gerais state, and some more in-depth coverage at the Jornal da Manhã newspaper (locally based in Uberaba). I've updated the article, but given the local nature of the coverage, and his rather unimpressive stint in US soccer, I'm thinking this is a borderline notable article. Jogurney (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a misguided nomination. Footballer clearly meets the professional standard. gidonb (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 29 October 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 Gigolo Aunts. RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom (Gigolo Aunts song)[edit]

Bloom (Gigolo Aunts song) (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-charting single. Single source is a guidebook which does not establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect to Gigolo Aunts. I can find some coverage through Newspapers.com, but I am uncertain if it is enough to establish enough notability for a separate article. However, since at least a limited amount of coverage does exist and this could be a viable search term, then a redirect would seem like a better course of action rather than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gigolo Aunts per Aoba47. Little coverage, only one source and the article is poorly written. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:17, 23 October 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. Firm consensus that he does not show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Willie Cloete[edit]

Francois Willie Cloete (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)

Cloete is not a prominent politician. His article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. He has never been elected or held a public office. He has only ever been a candidate and held leadership positions in many minor, insignificant parties. Most sources are unreliable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being treasurer of a small fringe political party is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but this article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable politician with no current affiliation to a political party. LordNkosi (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A clear lack of notability here. Gargleafg (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual is not notable through any of their positions Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Haggerty[edit]

Scott Haggerty (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:NPOL. Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. County board of supervisors is not an "inherently" notable role for the purposes of WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that automatically guarantees an article to every officeholder just for the fact of having held a political office is the state legislature. To be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, politicians at the county level have to be referenced to a depth and volume and range of reliable source coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other county councillors, but that's not what the sources here are showing — there's just a smattering of the purely routine local coverage that every county councillor can always expect to receive in their local media, which is not enough to make him more notable than most of the tens of thousands of other county councillors in North America who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete. Take for example the fact that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Supervisor Haggerty is currently the Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission^[1], leading all other elected officials on the Commission. Supervisor Haggerty's wikipedia page should be justified as notable on these grounds alone. Additionally, Wilma Chan is also on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Given she is no longer a state senator, does her page still qualify as notable?--Dst20191 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so the fact that Wilma Chan isn't still in the state legislature now doesn't matter: if she's ever served in the state legislature at all, then she stays notable on those grounds forever. Once a person has held a notable political office, they don't suddenly become non-notable when they leave that role and go on to do something else — our job is to be a comprehensive reference for everybody who's ever served in the state legislature, not just a directory of the current legislators. But notability is also not inherited, so the fact that Chan has an article does not mean that her colleagues on the county board get to have articles, even if they haven't also served in the state legislature, just because she has one: each person is judged according to their own most notable office attained, and not anybody else's. And the fact that the transit board has an article about it as a company does not mean its chair automatically gets to have a biographical article about him as a person either: chair of a local infrastructure board or not, he still has to pass the same notability test as any other local politician: namely, enough reliable source coverage to make him much more nationally significant than most other people at this level of office. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to being notable at the national level, Supervisor Haggerty currently represents Alameda County on the National Association of Counties, serving as Vice Chair of the Transportation Steering Committee and formerly as Chair for a number of years.^[2] Additionally, Scott serves on the Board of Directors of the California Association of Councils of Government.^[3] In regards to Supervisor Haggerty's participation in these organizations, the Supervisor has been exceptionally active/engaged at the national and state-wide level when compared with the vast majority of county supervisors in the nation. Based on these grounds alone, Supervisor Haggerty far surpasses the requirements for categorization as "notable" within the Wikipedia guidelines.--Dst20191 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are NPOL-passing roles. Nobody below the state legislature gets an automatic notability freebie just because he exists — what has to nationalize to make a person at the county level of office notable enough for an encyclopedia is his range of reliable source media coverage, not just the list of organizations he happens to be on the boards of. And incidentally, happening to have staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers ain't evidence of notability either. There's no such thing as notability without media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete members of the governing board of a county are not default notable for such, and without that we lack enough sources to show that Haggerty is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only locally notable politician. SportingFlyer T·C 01:37, 29 October 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 Bionicle media#Games. Tone 20:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle: Maze of Shadows[edit]

Bionicle: Maze of Shadows (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)

Only received one review according to GameRankings and appears to lack any significant coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. No prejudice toward redirecting to List of Lego video games or a more specific target, should it exist. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I am unable to find anything proper for the game besides a review in the AceGamez, and that is an unreliable website per WP:VG/RS. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bionicle media#Games. Not independently notable, but a plausible search term, WP:ATD-R, WP:CHEAP, etc. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Razorback Developments. Contains no references and establishes no notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Miller[edit]

Pablo Miller (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)

mostly 1-event WP:1E. This is a minor player in a big event. MartinezMD (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to deletion. Two other editors have contributed to the article since I started it. Given a little time, the article could become more comprehensive. The fact that Pablo Miller has been awarded an OBE suggests that he is a notable person. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so far on the face of it, though I am willing to be persuaded otherwise upon further elucidation of the potential lack of appropriate encyclopedic material, or policy. In addition to this one event, which generated WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" for the OBE applies here and lends weight to notability, though does not guarantee notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:47, 23 October 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. bd2412 T 00:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank-A anomaly[edit]

Bank-A anomaly (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)

Author recreated article that had been deleted within the past 36 hours. Possible COI based on editors name. Article is not well written and I am not sure it can be saved. It appears to me, that if this is indeed written by the man at the center of the case, that he is trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable event; no extensive news coverage to prove otherwise. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is clearly lacking notability. Barca (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this WP:NCRIME. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:44, 28 October 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 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motto by Hilton[edit]

Motto by Hilton (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, as yet unopened hotel brand largely sourced to press releases and promotional in tone "capturing local culture through its design and food and beverage offerings" Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough non promotional coverage found, and written like an advertisment by a paid editor. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - the topic looks to be a WP:NCORP (which applies to products and services as well as companies), as the topic has not accrued a sufficient level of coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited by the article are either WP:PRIMARY (i.e the Hilton Press Center), or lack the depth needed to establish the topic as meeting NCORP. Another issue is that the many of the sources cited are business announcements or are speculative in tone, implying the topic may fail WP:TOOSOON. Some of the content may be salvageable and could be added to Hilton Worldwide, but the topic is not ready for a standalone article. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kingston (musician)[edit]

Ron Kingston (musician) (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 musician. Nothing in the article suggests he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and my searches didn't find anything in-depth and independent indicating chart success or anything else which might suggest notability. Neiltonks (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete due to the fact there are a few sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, the subject does not appear notable. I could not find any information in an online search to support notability, and the only secondary source in the article is a performance on a daytime talkshow. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of the sources in the article appear to be reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pearls Before Swine (comic strip). MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pearls Before Swine characters[edit]

List of Pearls Before Swine characters (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)

Yet another example of how crufty we have become. A list of non-notable characters, consisting mostly of original research, and tagged for over a decade. Such content is simply not of any encyclopedic value, and is better placed on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the parent article has no content at all in its character section, just a link to this list, at best this would be merged and redirected there. There has been no attempt to perform or propose a merger nor even discuss on either talk page (not since this thread nine years ago). Bringing such nominations to AFD is not constructive and contra WP:ATD. This forum should be a last resort, never the first. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete Lol I created this over a decade age as a merge of the individual characters (original version). It would be fair to merge that version or whatnot to the main Pearls_Before_Swine_(comics)#Characters, but this has grown to quite the crufty monstrosity. Could have been done non-controversially on its own seeing we know how this will go and the list was just built up over the years by IPs. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without redirect. I don't have an issue with using AfD instead of a merge discussion. AfDs get more attention outside of the article's page watchers and the outcome is more binding. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Judith Grimes. Tone 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Grimes[edit]

Judith Grimes (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)

Yet another entry from fandom. Zero real world notability. Nothing but mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will try to find sources today and/or tomorrow as I find the time. For the character's first six seasons she was just a baby/toddler, and while she was occasionally a plot device, she was most often just there. I do not think it is helpful to mention every time someone carries her around, for example? Those seasons can be summed up in two to three small paragraphs at most. That said, her appearances in the ninth season as an older child gained a lot of attention and I will go through them to try to find what I can to build a decent development/reception section. Season 10 just started, so there may not be much material for her there. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have been added to build up the development and reception sections, and I believe that this article is now meeting the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that sourcing is brief mentions from the popular press--I don't consider that to be in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this was tagged for deletion when there are WP:ATDs, onel5969? At worst, this would be a merge or redirect to List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Judith_Grimes, which it was originally. Alerting the creator of the actual article, AND722. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn - because I tried those routes (redirecting to list), and was reverted without significant improvement. Hence the need for a discussion. I honestly would be quite fine with it redirecting to the list.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, onel5969 :) Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The current reception as of writing this now seems a bit improperly weighted, extending quotes to give sources more of a presence than the quote really provides. It is a pretty major show, so it might be that there are more meaty sources on the character. TTN (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No delete - I can find more sources and adventures of the character do not delete or redirect. Thanks.Tia Canita (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. Maybe next time don't do this, without explanation or edit summary. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There is some sourcing to allow one or two well-verified sentences in the main article. Everything else is just plot, of course--par for the course. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Judith_Grimes - Like Drmies said, the sourcing is enough to add a bit of referenced information to the character list, but not enough to support an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 28 October 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 by nominator. No prejudice against renomination of individual articles. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agol[edit]

Agol (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)

One line article with no reference since 2012. A neighbourhood article with no information or no practical purpose. Nizil (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles in Category:Neighbourhoods in Ahmedabad have similar problems. Some of them have more information (mostly with no reference) than a sentence but not beyond demographics or local places. These articles have no practical purpose. They were created by Renamed user xwt3mg45c51n2y2j808. -Nizil (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I am also nominating the following related pages (no reference/single sentence article):

• Alam Roza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anand Nagar (Ahmedabad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Badarkha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahiyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Polarpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rajpur Gomtipur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Odhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Navjivan (Neighbourhood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Navavadaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related pages (some information, mostly demographic, poor references):

• Ahmedabad Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ambawadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amraiwadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Asarwa Chakla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bapunagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ramol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ranip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Navarangpura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Naranpura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Memnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Large article, poor to few references)

• Naroda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Motera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating these much for now.-Nizil (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All per WP:GEOLAND and close. This AfD is a massive abuse of the AfD process with an objective to delete enmasse village stubs in one go without giving time for discussion. Agol is a decent sized village with a population of 4500,^[4] Can be located as this Google Map link shows. Has its own post office and Census data. Such stubs should be expanded and not deleted. If you cant be bothered to expand them then let some one else do it. Ramol has a verifiable link that states it had a population of 27 thousand in 2001. Obvious and easy keep per WP:GEOLAND. If there are one or two stubs that you feel genuinely merit a deletion then please nominate them separately. This AfD Bunching is unacceptable to me.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: according to WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. But: it also says populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighbourhoods etc Indian government or census doesnt have the concept of "neighbourhoods". However, government/census recognises "nagar", "colony", "mohalla" (they are mostly used as synonyms for each-other though).
So, if the subject is part of city or village, or the so called "neighbourhood", then WP:GNG should be applied, otherwise everything deserves an article per WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Usernamekiran the only thing missing in ur line is an obvious Keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: lol. That's true. I would have done that, but then there are few articles like Anand Nagar (Ahmedabad). —usernamekiran(talk) 17:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and nominate one by one if required. @Nizil Shah:, it would be really hard to discuss more than one article at one go. May I suggest that you withdraw the bulk nomination and then gradually nominate them individually if you feel they are not notable?. In some cases, if a standalone article is not feasible (particularly for small neighbourhoods), it could be merged into the article of a larger entity. If possible please nominate them slowly (like 2 or 3 a week), since it takes time to search for sources as well. I am willing to help out with finding references, but it will be difficult to find all in one go.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep All are notable per WP:GEOLAND and this is a blatant abuse of WP:MULTIAFD. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep as the articles nominated in bulk do not fall under same category to have a common AFD. Some are census towns and some are neighbourhoods within census towns. Both of these have different notability standards and we shouldn't waste editors' time in discussing all together. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing nomination. After reading all comments, I agree that bulk nomination will not be fruitful. I will nominate one by one. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:09, 23 October 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 Gareth Branwyn. Tone 20:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Street Tech[edit]

Street Tech (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)

Unremarkable personal website Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gareth Branwyn. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gareth Branwyn, where this is mentioned. There is nothing here to merge -- it's just a brief unsourced line with OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:28, 26 October 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 20:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donegal Tuesday[edit]

Donegal Tuesday (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)

Irrelevant unofficial student event The Banner talk 17:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge into new section in NUI Galway or Rag (student society) or Galway#Events and festivals. "Irrelevant" to what exactly? As per "Redirects for discussion" discussion here, there's enough content from reputable national sources over more than 5 years. This is a thing, and it's a thing worth a mention in this encyclopedia.Bogger (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Than you can start listing almost every student party and group. By the way, as it is an unofficial event, merging with the three targets you have mentioned is not a good idea. Those ties are non-existent. The Banner talk 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 16:27, 28 October 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 20:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heebie-jeebies (idiom)[edit]

Heebie-jeebies (idiom) (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 dictionary: The entirety of this article is just a definition of the phrase "heebie-jeebies" and its origins — Chevvin 19:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Billy_DeBeck#Legacy where it is appropropiate to explain the origin of the phrase. Andrew D. (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm going to add the origin of the phrase to the dab page Heebie-jeebies, which makes this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The addition to the DAB page that Clarityfiend added should be sufficient to direct readers to Billy DeBeck's page for more information on the origin of the phrase, and is a far more likely destination for searches than this. There is no actual sourced information here that needs to be merged there, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 22 October 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 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ink Tank[edit]

The Ink Tank (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 am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. At best, relevant content can be merged to R. O. Blechman. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delate or merge: This is not primiary animation studio. i.e a studio that produce its own movies or frames them out in parts its only company that takes commisions from other so they don't own anything they do. DoctorHver (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heinlein planets[edit]

List of Heinlein planets (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 real world information, no references to pass WP:GNG, no actual relevance because this doesn't even seem to be a connected universe, all WP:PLOT details only. Each novel should easily be capable of describing the important locations for necessary plot context. TTN (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Serves no useful purpose that I can see. There are no significant cross-novel connections that I can think of (... except Earth, of course, and Mars sorta, though Red Planet isn't included). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--just a listing of individually non-notable items, lacking secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when a list is sourced only to the fictionally works the listed items come from it clearly has not shown justification for existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dowling-Neven law[edit]

Dowling-Neven law (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)

A user with a declared COI on Jonathan Dowling renamed "Neven's law" to include Dowling's name in it. Article reads like original research aiming to show that Dowling came up with the "law" first. No secondary source is provided to support that statement, nor the use of the term "Dowling-Neven law". Ariadacapo (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:42, 22 October 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 October 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find exactly one external use of "Dowling-Neven law", and that's a blog article by Dowling (who also wrote this article). --mfb (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not yet an established term. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or Redirect. "Neven's law" appears to be the accepted name, so move it to there or redirect to Hartmut Neven. This will let people who come across blog posts find out what it is.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neven's law" isn't really a thing, either; it's one guy's bit of sales talk, propagated by the fluffiest of pop-science "journalism", and having no real detectable presence in the quantum information science community. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neven's law was already created and then eliminated. WP:NEO. Its a term that was coined earlier this year, about a theory that predicts an event that might happen this year, based on very limited data. Too new, and too poorly sourced.--Srleffler (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored Neven's Law by undoing the redirect to this AfDs target and merged to the former location Neven's law. The merits of that should be discussed there, rather than here to keep it simple. Widefox; talk 08:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Update - fixed uppercase. Widefox; talk 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. insufficient sources and COI editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete couldn't find a secondary source, but there are for Neven's Llaw. Widefox; talk 08:24, 25 October 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 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wordtheque[edit]

Wordtheque (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)

Very short unreferenced article. Appears to relate to this: http://www.logoslibrary.eu/index.php?newsearch=1&code_language=EN Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOTPROMOTION as this page has been created for. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW; borderline speedy as a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. bd2412 T 17:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 4 Hours of Silverstone (disambiguation)[edit]

2019 4 Hours of Silverstone (disambiguation) (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 a pointless DAB as the primary topic (2019 4 Hours of Silverstone) can simply have a hatnote (which it now has) pointing to the secondry topic (2019 ELMS 4 Hours of Silverstone, which is yet to be created) making this page (which was created from a page move (see Talk: 2019 4 Hours of Silverstone for details)) redundent.
SSSB (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for nom's reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MOS:HAT suggests not to have a hatnote if the article is a redlink, but I'm fine ignoring that in this instance (thought of doing it myself). I'd still support deletion even if the hatnote were removed as a disambiguation page for two terms, one of which doesn't have an article, is pretty useless for readers. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for nom's reason. TJSRX (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per the nom's reasons. HawkAussie (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kidatz[edit]

Kidatz (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)

Subject is a Tanzanian actor and dancer. A WP:BEFORE on Kidatz and Chrisman dino found only user generated sources (social media). Gaining recognition in his Instagram page and no other achievements to suggest he meet the notability guidelines. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Per WP:CSD#A7. nothing found on google. Fail WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.-Nahal^(T) 11:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 14:12, 26 October 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 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Tam[edit]

Chester Tam (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 has been recreated & deleted a few times, mainly by what looks like an SPA account. Credits are mainly on small internet projects, bit parts in movies, staff writer on minor shows, etc. Very little RS, questionable notability. JamesG5 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. One NBC News article and annoucements that Gabrielle Union will star in and produce his next production[11] don't constitute enough media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 23 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Voices (2005 film)[edit]

Silent Voices (2005 film) (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)

Another non-notable film article from the promoters of Paul Atherton HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep as this one did receive some reliable sources coverage such as a review in Empire Magazine, DVD monthly magazine and some related coverage in The Big Issue, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per reasons cited by Atlantic306 Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few capsule reviews do not constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia policy on notability for films has clear and specific criteria, as for example (from Wikipedia:NFO) "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" or "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." Wikipedia notability is a high bar, this film doesn't reach it. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable with enough coverage. WP:NFO is being misused because it doesn't state that is what a film article must have. That section of the film notability guideline is titled "Other evidence of notability", meaning that the section is only for if a film article doesn't meet the general notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The empire review is the only decent bit of coverage about the film. One slightly good piece is not enough. Passing mentions and a capsule review fall well short. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 17 October 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) 09:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teri O'Neill[edit]

Teri O'Neill (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 fails to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. A local politician has no inherent notability. Only one ref discusses subject but not in any depth. Contested PROD. Since I prodded, there's been one new source with some substance but not enough to achieve GNG. Schwede66 08:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Member of the Wellington City Council. --Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused by your comment, Enos733. I'm sure anybody commenting here would read the article first and yes, that is what they would find out about the subject. What is your rationale for making that comment? What does it mean? What does it add to this AfD? Schwede66 17:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is two fold. First, it provides a placeholder comment about the best possible claim of meeting and the standard upon which to judge WP:NPOL. For local officials, we regularly do consider city size, not as the criteria, but as a criteria (especially for mayors and councilmebers from global cities). When the nom states "local politician" without context, it takes community members an additional click to understand the context of the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wellington NZ is not a large or internationally prominent enough city to hand its city councillors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL. At this level, getting a city councillor into Wikipedia requires the ability to demonstrate that she is substantively a special case of significantly greater nationalized or internationalized notability than the norm for city councillors — but this article is neither stating nor sourcing anything that would demonstrate that. Note that only one other current member of Wellington City Council has an article at all (who?), and it's also up for deletion for the same reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to agree, but who is the other current councillor with an article up for deletion? Hugo999 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamatha Paul; has already been deleted. Schwede66 18:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is time to end special pleading and to make all members of city councils pass or fall on GNG, and O'Neill falls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Kiwichris (talk) 01:00, 27 October 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) 09:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1(Cheat Codes EP)[edit]

Level 1(Cheat Codes EP) (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:NALBUM - can't find any significant coverage, just mentions that it exists / has been released. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Almost A9'd it but turns out that Cheat Codes (DJs) do have an article. WOuld not recommend redirection due to erroneous title spacing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. I was actually just about to type out my standard rationale on why non-notable albums, songs, EPs, or other musical projects should be redirected to the main article for the artist whenever possible, but I did not notice the title spacing until the above comment. Thank you for pointing it out, as I just completely read over it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Unsourced, uncategorised, non-notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom.-Nahal^(T) 08:06, 24 October 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 20:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Eastwick[edit]

Elliot Eastwick (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 demonstration of notability. (Discogs is crowd sourced) Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m Elliot Eastwick. This page is constantly being trolled and edited with untruth and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot Eastwick (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - locally-known DJ from Leeds-Manchester area. No evidence of charting or touring. Coatrack for trolls. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 October 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 and merge to List of Macross characters. Note that the merge still needs to be done; the history has been retained. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Focker[edit]

Roy Focker (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)

Fictional character bio that fails to discuss his significance/reception and I don't see much else there. Supporting character in a long running classic anime, but unlikely to be notable on its own. BEFORE shows some mentions in passing, but primarily summaries of his fictional character bio, and a little bit about merchandise (appearance in a video game, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Macross characters. ミラP 12:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP 12:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラP 12:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a main character in the series, but like with Max, could merge with the List of characters if there isn't enough independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Macross characters, mergers can be done through the kept editing history as needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. D. Gunawardhana[edit]

H. D. Gunawardhana (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 to satisfy the criteria under WP:NACADEMIC. It has been identified as needing improvement since 2017 with no substantial changes made. When the article was PROD'd in 2017 it was deprod'd on the basis that it appeared to address criteria #3, which relates to a person a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. There are no sources provided which confirm that he has been appointed as a fellow - which was identified as being an issue in 2017. Most of the other references/sources are dead links or mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A source has now been cited by Russ Woodroofe confirming a pass of WP:PROF#C3. Wouldn't it have been easier for the nominator to do that himself rather than nominate this for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, I added the source. I have some reservations about notability, though: usually, someone who passes WP:NPROF C3 also shows signs of progress on some of the other WP:NPROF criteria. I didn't find it here. For example citations of his work seem to be nearly nonexistent. But perhaps he was appoint to NAS Sri Lanka on the basis educational work or service to the profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Woodroofe (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His scholarly output also looks weak to me, with Google Scholar citation counts 21, 19, 10, ... But I just added a source for a likely pass of WP:PROF#C6 (president of Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science [12]), confirming the notability already in evidence by #C3 above. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NPROF C3, and my reservations are addressed with the source added by David Eppstein. — Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:08, 24 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's-Kilmarnock School[edit]

St. John's-Kilmarnock School (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)

Last AfD few years ago closed by saying that all high schools are notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Since then we had an RfC that clarified this. We need to show this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. And so far, the article fails at this, badly, and I don't see much else in my WP:BEFORE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline, it's simply a documentation of what usually takes place and is furthermore confirmed by tacit consensus through 1,000s of school AfD closures. The cited RfC actually had no clear consensus - it's mainly interpreted by peope who want to read out of it what they 'like' - mainbly deletionists. The RfC aolso inferred that whatever its outcome, it should not be used as an excuse to start tagging existing school articles for deletion. This article already survived one AfD by an overwhelming consensus to that effect so there is no need to revisit it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 400 pupil all-through school. 10+ Google pages of references- some primary, but detailed comparison sites such as Our Kids "St. John's-Kilmarnock School - Waterloo Region (Breslau) Private Day Boarding School". www.ourkids.net.. Its an IB-school so that seals notability. The way forward is to use these references and build up the article.ClemRutter (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. tedder (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a few sources, documenting the school's enabling legislation in 1972 and its accreditation status. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kudpung and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Betegy[edit]

Betegy (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)

Run of the mill article about a start up. Most references are primary, press-releases and trivial business as usual report about attempts to get financing. Did get coverage in a WSJ blog [13], so that's something, even through blogs associated with bigger reliable news outlets are still, well, blogs (WP:SPS, depends on whether the parent company does editorial checks or not, and that's not really public info...). I think this story was also picked up by others, like [14], but in the end its a variant of WP:ONENEWS, and I don't think that's sufficient to make this company notable. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORSPAM for further reading. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The WSJ "blogs" are not necessarily how we would think of blogs. Despite it having the name "blog", it is not the same as a contributor platform such as Forbes Sites or unpaid contributors for Entrepreneur. People can't simply sign up and post anything they want so there is editorial oversight with who they let submit content. With that in mind, that is the best piece available I could find. Now, all of its coverage seems to be surrounded by a general announcement of the company entering the market. This WOULD fall under WP:ONENEWS so there isn't anything else that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Until the company can generate press other than their general announcements, this falls under WP:TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasaris[edit]

Hasaris (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 this plot device (fictional alien race) passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Unreferenced too, BEFORE finds only mention in passing, primary brief in-universe descriptions with no indication of real world significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable cruft. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pantanal Linhas Aéreas Flight 4763[edit]

Pantanal Linhas Aéreas Flight 4763 (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 runway excursion with no injuries to speak of. runway excursions happen all the time are non-notable in themselves. The fact that the aircraft is an insurance write-off is not notable either. As the article states this is the 18th hull loss of an ATR, what makes this so notable to require an article?. Generally WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS Petebutt (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be very closely related to TAM Airlines Flight 3054 - a fatal accident at the same airport, due to the same cause (i.e. aquaplaning on a part refurbished runway) the next day. As such Keep, as this appears to be part of a pattern of accidents and near misses at the airport.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the incident, on its own, is not independently notable. The of the four sources presented, three are directories and one is the government-issued incident report. No accompanying news coverage. Since it may be related to the TAM flight the next day, some of the information may be merged to that article if it is mentioned in sources describing or contemporaneous with the TAM crash (to avoid WP:SYNTH issues.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding any lasting coverage (or even significant coverage in multiple sources from 2007): the only Google search results comprise a small handful of sources describing the coverage immediately after the incident (in 2007) or Wikipedia mirror sites. This isn't notable enough for a standalone article, but it could be worth mentioning in the article about the TAM crash if that can be sourced. ComplexRational (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing in the article indicates that it is noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per SportingFlyer. This incident is only relevant in the context of the much more serious TAM crash the following day, assuming the underlying cause or causes are related. If so, a mention in a Background section on the TAM crash article would be appropriate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage of the topic in particular, as far as I'm aware from other comments. Utopes (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just not notable, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 28 October 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. Relevant content already merged into players' articles. Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Kyaw Ko Ko[edit]

List of international goals scored by Kyaw Ko Ko (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 am also nominating the following related page due to the low number of events that have occured in that list as well:

List of international goals scored by Gurban Gurbanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both lists are very useless and fail WP:GNG. They should be merged back into their respective players' biography articles. — KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the nominated article as it has already been merged into Kyaw Ko Ko article and also Merge for the Gurban Gurbanov article as like the nominator said both of them isn't really useful to have it's own seperate article. HawkAussie (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as I've merged the relevant information in Gurbanov's article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability justifying separate articles. GiantSnowman 10:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no good as a standalone article. Content could be merged, but it's frankly unencyclopedic. Utopes (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion at this time, and nothing in the discussion lends to thinking that relisting is likely to resolve in that direction. bd2412 T 03:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Community[edit]

Civic Community (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)

Lacks significant in-depth WP:RS to establish why it is notable, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only given a passing mention; therefore, too thin coverage. Passing mentions are usually not counted, refer to statement in WP:GNG: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The real political force that postulates Carlos Mesa is CC, like the MUD in Venezuela or other electoral coalitions that have an article. The FRI is only a minority party whose legal status serves this purpose.--FelipeRev (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @FelipeRev: How does your argument relate to notability? From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @AnUnnamedUser: It is notable for the fact that it is the second force in an election of importance to the country where the events occur. In addition, the article has numerous sources of different media, so I do not consider that the argument that there are no reliable sources can be taken as valid. The article can be expanded, it is not necessary to delete it.--FelipeRev (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to make this a back-and-forth, but I would like to note to future participants to look at the sources and decide if they give only passing mentions and actual in-depth coverage. I sincerely say that I may have misjudged and been wrong. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is useful to be able to click on the party's name and know what kind of party it is, if you are looking up the Bolivian general election. The information in this article seems too long to include inside the general election article itself. Also, the article has five references from three different websites. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:5553:C40E:9AF0:3698 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument is fallacious. "Usefulness" of information does not impact notability. Preserving all "useful" information is not necessary. Mere references may just be passing mentions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the , this is (about to become) the second biggest party in Bolivia in terms of representation. Seems pretty notable to me. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone find sources in Spanish? I couldn't find English sources. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The second biggest political force in Bolivia is clearly sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh... WP:ORGSIG, a policy, dictates that notability isn't inherent for organizations. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a somewhat recently created political entity but this political party/coalition is the main opponent to the governing party in Bolivia's possibly ongoing elections, and were elected on the first ballot to the second-most seats (70 elected members in total) in both houses of the Bolivian legislature with over 2.2 million votes to the winning party's 2.9 million. We don't seem to have a SNG specifically for political parties but this organization meets both of the criteria of WP:NGO easily. Suggesting that a nation's leading opposition political entity is not notable seems as though it must be politically motivated; I can't conceive any good-faith reason to suggest deletion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]