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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurralla Rajyam[edit]

Kurralla Rajyam (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)

Film, which does not indicate its importance. There are no reliable source for this film to establish its notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no reliable sources can be found on various search engines and websites (for example IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes)to prove that this exists. Although you may say that this is found on Amazon and Dailymotion, it is not "reliable" according to the definition on WP:N and WP:CITE.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references in the article nor can I find any. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article doesn't have enough reliable source. Barca (talk) 16:25, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tondino[edit]

Tristan Tondino (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)

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. This is the first time I have seen the "collections" section used to list the museums that have refused the artist's work rather than collected it. I think that part tends to reinforce the argument for him being non notable. Previously deleted by consensus in 2007. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable artist who does not meet WP criteria WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST. All I could find was social media sites and blogs, nothing of substance. Netherzone (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Following comment pasted from the AFD talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--What should we do when articles or newspaper reviews are no longer available online or when the newspapers no longer exist?Booboo the dog (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the 'Cite news' template for citing offline newspapers sources. As a matter of policy offline sources are equal to online sources. Curiocurio (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Curiocurio Booboo the dog (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment following up on my delete !vote above - The article was created by an SPA with an obvious COI, and has been heavily edited by another SPA, both of whom are focused on articles related to Tondino and his father. The article is WP:PROMO, just like the one that was deleted some years ago. Fails NARTIST on all four points: 1) they are NOT regarded as an important figure, nor are they widely cited by peers or successors; 2) They are NOT known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3)They have NOT played a major role in creating a significant or well known work or collective body of work, nor are they the primary subject of an independent and notable work, nor multiple independent books, articles reviews that cover them in a significant way; 4) Their work is NOT a significant monument, substantial part of a significant exhibition (like solo shows at museums), they have not won significant critical attention, nor are they in permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. I could not verify any of the collections listed in the article (which are private, family members, or corporate). The museums he attempted to donate his work to did not accept it for their collections. Just because someone is an artist and has had a few shows or screenings and a couple mentions in the press, is not enough to merit an encyclopedia article. WP is not a LinkedIn equivalent. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment maybe we should be loosening the guidelines somewhat? Things that appear true: 1) this artist has had representation in reasonably significant Montreal Galleries (Kastel, Dominion); 2) This artist's work has been included in and has sold in significant Canadian Auction houses (Heffel, Levis, Ritchie); 3) this artist has had public shows (Cultural centres) Booboo the dog (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems this is the 3rd time this article has been up for deletion: the 2007 nomination states that the article was "Prodded, deleted and recreated" - making this one the 3rd nomination. It may be best to salt. As to the list above of "things that appear true": 1) the exhibitions are either unverifiable or not significant: Galerie Kastel does not list him as one of their "exhibited artists, nor does Dominion; Galerie 1225 is a "gallery" in a wine bar on the McGill Univ. campus where alumni can show their work (he is an alum); Maxwell Haus Studios & Centre St Ambroise seems to be for-rent studios and a brew pub; Nelligan is a hotel and shops; Studio St-Ambroise seem to be studios for-rent by-the-day where anyone could put up a show. I was unable to verify the Salon de la Plasticas Mexicanos exhibition. 2) works sold at auction do not establish notability, just that the artist sold some work, which is what hundreds of thousands of artists do. 3) See item 1 above. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment okay, sorry for the extra work I put you through Booboo the dog (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Problem I checked and many of your last claims Netherzone are actually untrue unfortunately. For example, Gallery 1225 was never affiliated with McGill and the owner reopened under the name NuEdge. This artist did have an exhibition in 2002 at Kastel Gallery and the gallery closed in 2006. While I am know longer certain this artist is notable by wiki guidelines, your research is problematic. Perhaps a Montrealer could weigh in here? Booboo the dog (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will weigh in to say that this artist is not notable by our standards, and that this long discussion of such an extremely minor artist is a waste of editor time. Good?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but I was hoping for somebody other than you or Netherzone. I also commend you on some really exceptional work for women artists :-) Booboo the dog (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been reorganizing this page. I have found a few interesting items offline that I will try to organize correctly. Thank you! Booboo the dog (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Okay, I was unable to find anything more than small articles in secondary or regional newspapers (I hope that doesn't offend anyone). Nothing confirms that his work has been collected by important galleries or owners of galleries. Also, thank you for your help. It's been very educational. Booboo the dog (talk) 01:17, 31 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswaram Temple[edit]

Maheswaram Temple (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 touristy, nearly incomprehensible, I believe it'd need a full rewrite to become a decent article at this point. Just a tangled mess in general. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Many of the references are unreliable, primary sources, or non-references, including YouTube, Google Maps, Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, videos, and tourist brochures. Much of the article is incomprehensible and contains marketing buzzspeak. The history is unverified and appears to be mythological.
  • • There was a previous AFD four years ago which was closed as No Consensus, basically due to a lack of participation. The article has not improved substantially in four years even if more questionable sources have been added. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policy either. They are protesting the deletion on their talk page. Linking here for note. User_talk:Arunmanoharmg#Thank_You --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Extra note: I just realised the editor may actually be engaging in paid editing. See my note here -- MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. I actually think there's an outside chance that this is a notable topic. The lingam received some attention (see here from the Times of India). Assuming in good faith that at least one or two of the poorly-formatted print sources referenced in the current article actually has something germane to say about the temple in general (but see below), there's probably enough to build a legitimate article. What we have here, however, isn't it, and isn't salvageable. It conflates mythology and doctrine with history, is so dubiously referenced as to render any of the text questionable, and has significant passages that are on the whole barely comprehensible. Also, I believe that at least some of the print sources are being used in ways that do not support the provided claims; Glimpses of Architecture in Kerala Temples and Palaces is available via Google's frustrating Snippet View, but that's enough to determine that the word "Maheswaram" does not appear in the text; I suspect the book actually describes an architectural style, which is then attributed to this temple here via original research. And so for those several reasons, even if the temple is a notable topic, this article is so badly non-compliant that we're better off without it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Channel[edit]

Splash Channel (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 source, no indication of notability, therefore failing WP:NCORP and WP:NTV. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note, but the results were mixed with results for a show on ABC, so I may have missed something. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm inclined to think they started a test feed for investment, but it (and likely as the article source said, big name players launching their own competitors) doomed the channel as a going concern before it ever launched, so this was a test network that didn't get out of the testing stage. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons mentioned above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 31 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Reeb[edit]

Lloyd Reeb (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)

Biography with no claim of notability, that relies too much on primary sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The username of the editor that created this article, User:Cwreeb, implies a WP:COI. Purely promotional article for a non-notable public speaker. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Another one-man ministry. I might be more convinced if Halftime Institute had a WP page. That is apart from COI issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Osgerby[edit]

Daniel Osgerby (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 apparent notability. Provides sources do not establish any notability whatsoever. Seems to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: also, created by User:Wildfirestudios, which appears to be a single purpose promotional account. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be WP:TOOSOON at this stage with mainly short film roles and one-episode tv roles so WP:NACTOR is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 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. There is a clear consensus here. While notification of affected projects is a courtesy it is not a requirement and these nominations did appear in the project's article alerts. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek planets (A–B)[edit]

List of Star Trek planets (A–B) (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)

Star Trek minutia (aka fancruft). This is a test case for the rest of the alphabetical lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the snowy consensus, I'm nominating the rest of the alphabet:

List of Star Trek planets (C–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (G–L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (M–Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (R–S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (T–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All of these lists are unnecessary, WP:PLOT-only, WP:GNG failing laundry lists of pure minutia. There is nothing for which these lists can be used in terms of allowing for more context by linking from another article. The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location. TTN (talk)

• Delete all the new additions, same reasoning. TTN (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'keep breakout list of notable plot element of series. Exists because of size of parent articles. Each list element needn't be individually notable. List well defined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the topic of "Star Trek Planets" notable? If not, then that argument can be used for literally any list of fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's a key plot element. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely subjective, and it doesn't go against the fact that such a loose reason for splitting a list opens up literally any list. "These weapons are key elements of this RPG." "These special attacks are key elements of this anime." etc. TTN (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure fancruft with no context, WP:ALLPLOT. There definitely don't seem to be enough notable planets in Star Trek to merit a large number of lists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list is nothing but trivial WP:PLOT information, sourced only to the episodes themselves. A singular, well sourced list or article on the actual notable planets in the franchise (i.e. Vulcan, Qo'Nos, etc.) would make sense. A listing of the hundreds of planets that have been mentioned throughout the franchise's fifty year history, sourced to nothing but the episodes themselves, is nothing but cruft. And while there are sources out there that discuss the fictional planets of the franchise, they are, again, pretty much limited to the handful of actually notable examples, not the countless number contained in these lists that had no bearing on the plot of even a single episode and were mentioned off hand. Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, as my recommendation was posted before the remainder of the lists were added, I do fully support deleting all of them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. This kind of list is more suited for a Star Trek-focused wiki than Wikipedia. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as these as purely all-plot stuff, not notable at all.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a single planet that is blue linked that has its own article for Star Trek and not a real location? Bajor links to Bajoran, and the other links I clicked to are just real life locations. Are the other lists like this also? If there is enough legitimate blue links from all of them combined, then merge them together. Dream Focus 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Currently, no. The closest we have is the link to "Earth" linking to the Star Trek segment of the Earth in science fiction article, and Vulcan, as the name of the planet and native species are the same, so the target article discusses both. The remaining blue links are either to the real-life locations, or to the species that inhabits them (i.e. Qo'Nos linking to Klingon). Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all All of these should've been nominated at once, since its the same situation in all of them. Not a single article exist for any planet, only for the notable species, then delete them all. Dream Focus 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are now nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sadly these are all about plot stuff so there is no convincing reason to keep these pages. All of the notable content almost certainly exists already on other Star Trek articles. WP:ALLPLOT. Ceosad (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. On a related note, see this. ミラP 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And there go the planets!! Govvy (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above , there is nothing new and notable with this article Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and object to any continuation or close to this attempt per not notifying the Star Trek and Science Fiction Wikiprojects for response and per not notifying the list's creator outside of the A-B article. Keep per well sourced and educational list and per WP:IGNOREALLRULES as this list is an exceptional resource for the encyclopedia and keeping it maintains the encyclopedia's Star Trek collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified the wikiprojects and ask for a relisting for responses, if any. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like pointless wikilawyering. There is no need to notify projects, and notifying creators is a curtesy. How many are even still active? TTN (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A need to notify the Star Trek wikiproject about a removal discussion of six major articles seems obvious and important for the credibility of finalizing such a mass removal. Notifying projects is the good faith and fair way to go with something like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a nicety, but not a necessity. That's especially true given that it looks to be a fairly inactive project, and it can be assumed anyone truly active in the project would have these pages on their radar given the relatively low number of articles on the topic compared to mass Wikiprojects. It seems like you're trying to enforce pointless bureaucracy due to your own personal interest in the topic. TTN (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I like the topic, and I also don't like the fact that this massive collection of material on the subject is being quickly jettisoned without alerting others who may like the topic. The comments about me obscure the actual target - the collection of Star Trek planets material which is likely the best such collection on the internet and which, by the way, seems quite encyclopedia worthy. Hopefully the closer will consider the Ignore the Rules direction to maintain the encyclopedia which, in a real way, asks us to maintain specific and unique articles in a topic collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only found out about it by seeing the WikiProject notification; I watch the project talk page, but not these lists. It is highly desirable to notify projects. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mostly not notable, but handle incoming redirects & links with care rather than simply deleting them all. Some could usefully be redirected to episode articles instead, in cases where a location made a worthwhile connection between multiple episodes. As TTN stated above, "The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location" but, unless done by an admin, that needs to be done before deletion (or by temporarily pasting a copy into WikiProject space). Note: I have just removed links to these sub-lists from Template:Star Trek so that we can see what intentional incoming links remain. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Too many lists, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as mostly not notable. Rollidan (talk) 20:42, 31 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) 19:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keshab Dahal[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NPOL. There are quite a few articles he's published in national newspapers, or at least their online versions, but I could find none that was published about him, not even trivial coverage. Spam factory as of now, tried to clean it up myself but gave up after I couldn't find RS to replace it with. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another non-notable candidate from an article creator with a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no sources can be found, just a random person from a dissolved political party. Can't find him in the national newspapers. No idea why this exists. --WikiAviator (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being on the central organizing committee of a small political party is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG — but the article presents no credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons. You don't make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to his own writing as technical verification that it exists, you make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to journalism (book reviews, news articles, etc.) written by other people as evidence that media paid independent third party attention to his writing. But that's not what the "sources" here are. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reliable source from this article that could prove it's notability. Barca (talk) 16:53, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoli Olympitis[edit]

Manoli Olympitis (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 don't see any third-party sources that meet WP:RS to indicate how this person is notable; it doesn't appear that any of the companies they've chaired, etc., are notable either. Article was originally created by single-purpose account, and prod was disputed by a newly-created account with possible WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The user who removed the prod stated in one of their (only two) edits that they were adding a link and "multiple citations", but actually did not.[1] I don't believe this is an attempt to deceive, but rather a sign of a new user perplexed by our requirements. Even so, they have added nothing to the purpose, and I don't see any indication of notability. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 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 redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers. RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waspinator[edit]

Waspinator (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 fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers - I'm not finding anything that goes much in depth on the character that would support an independent article - mostly just plot summaries or announcements/descriptions of toys based on him. However, as a major character of a notable cartoon, it would make sense to redirect to the main article. And while there have been other incarnations of the character, the Beast Wars version was the original and, by far, the most well known. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rorshacma. The target makes more sense than List of Autobots and List of Decepticons ミラP 02:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers, if this is the most well known series then a redirect makes sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. "Why universe hate Waspinator?" Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers by the rationale provided above. Utopes (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers, I did not find anything new for a stand alone article Alex-h (talk) 11:35, 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 Daystar affiliates#Alabama. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBUN-CA[edit]

WBUN-CA (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)

LPTV station doesn't meet notability. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to List of Daystar affiliates#Alabama as station's entire existence has been as a Daystar pass-through; when in doubt, just redirect, then start an AfD discussion if there's an objection. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open Carbon World[edit]

Open Carbon World (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 working references. May no longer exist, Rathfelder (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can find no indication this still exists, plus the article as written reads like a promo. Home Lander (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article doesn't show enough coverage to support it's notability. Barca (talk) 00:46, 30 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Pagani[edit]

Alice Pagani (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:NACTOR. Although I could find a reference after a WP:BEFORE ([2]), it contains little information. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Alice deserves this page due to the successful show Baby on Netflix she stars in and the 1.1m followers she currently has on instagram, it also informs people about her. Also she is listed on the italian wiki but this is obviously in Italian and not readable by the English audience to the show. Sdurward (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Please see below. matt91486 (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There is more substantial Italian language coverage, with large features in both Vanity Fair and Vogue. Other sources are [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. That's just the first five pages of google results. matt91486 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage in Italian sources as detailed above and others such as Italian Cosmopolitan where she was featured in an article and the front cover, which shows that WP:GNG has been passed and there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ever filtering out some non-independent content from the interviews, there is still plenty available to show notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matt91486. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. John Pack Lambert's argument is compelling in light of WP:V: BLPs without reliable sources must be deleted. Sandstein 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Miller (actor)[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability for this actor. It's is also unsourced, which isn't surprising to me at all. Pahiy (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Had a reasonable stage career after his major role in Ship to Shore. Primary source. Significant role in a touring production of X-Stacy as documented in Kent, Melissa (19 March 2003), "Seeking ecstasy.", The West Australian. This production of Thieving Boy and Like Stars In My Hands was notable, see the reviews + [8], he had major role in the former. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in one TV series and a number of theatre productions as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article doesn't give any assertion of notability (or information about him beyond his name and profession and location and birth). It's not even a stub at this point. Unless somebody steps in now and makes a credible stub out of the article, there's nothing here of value to keep.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete having only IMDb as a source should be a stanrdard speedy delete cause. To add to the problems, this article mentions no roles ever. To be notable we need to identify and source multiple roles that are significant and were in notable productions. 0 roles can not fulfill this criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McKenzie[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability. Just like her Ship To Shore costar Heath Miller, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage about her in any news outlets. Pahiy (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NACTOR with roles. These got reviewed in mainstream newspapers, [9] (reasonably high billing [10]), [11], [12]. Primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per duffbeerforme, and more sources can be added, verifying her roles and reviewing her performances, including in other productions not already included. I have started making a table of the stage performances and will add to the article when it's more complete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article is being improved with extra reliable sources references and supported content so that deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "roles" alone do not make someone notable, they need to be significant roles in notable productions, a threshold not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

prominent theatre roles count and so the threshold is met imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says that prominent theatre roles qualify. Otherwise everybody who had ever played Lady Bracknell in an amateur dramatics production of The Importance of Being Earnest would merit a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NACTOR. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Emphasis added. No it doesn't extend to any amateur dramatics production, it needs to be a notable production. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment. The first clue I had that something isn't right with the article is that I couldn't find the existence of the Australian National Theatre, but I did find a newspaper article from 2015 lamenting that no such theatre organization yet exists (or has ever existed) in Australia. In short, without some more compelling evidence (ie better sourcing), I don't think WP:NACTOR in provable yet in this article.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I solved the mystery. Please see the updates I made to the article. It looks like "Australia National Theatre Live" should have been the title. It means she was in nationally televised productions from the Perth playhouse. I also discovered she's won and been nominated for some of Australia's major theatre awards (see here). Those nominations indicate notability to me. The article still needs better sourcing, but a tag would be more appropriate than deletion giving the awards.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:4meter4, I would suggest it's a third thing. See the list of productions from the mimma link

Godspell, Chicago, Jack The Ripper Show, On Our Selection, A Chorus of Disapproval, Company and Charity Barnum in Barnum (National Theatre Co).

Compare to what was in the wiki page

Godspell, Chicago, The Jack the Ripper Show, On Our Selection, A Chorus of Disapproval, Company and Barnum for the Australian National Theatre Company.

Someone editing the wikipedia page added the "Australian" [13]. The actual mob is National Theatre Inc over time called Perth Repertory Club, The National Theatre of Western Australia Inc and The National Theatre Company Inc. See [14]. Also an extra production for them, Sisterly Feelings, not yet listed can be seen here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the improvements to the article. Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Duffbeerforme finds that she has been reviewed for her major roles and meets the requirements for actors. Dream Focus 02:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Other articles on stage productions she has been in. For The Crucible - [15].For Sand - [16], [17], [18], "Done and dusted: Can we survive?", The West Australian, 18 June 2014. For Face to Face - Naglazas, Mark (9 August 2004), "Human face of conflict", The West Australian. For Turning - Christmass, Pip (10 November 2008), "Below-par but Turning scores", The West Australian + Borlaug, Odna (4 March 2008), "Turning to earthy look at family life", Western Suburbs Weekly. I make no claim on significance of roles without further investigation. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Edge Inc.[edit]

Salt Edge Inc. (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 can't find a single mention of this company in an independant reliable source (WP:ORGCRIT). The cited sources are primary sources and press releases. One Moldovan newspaper has briefly mentioned one of their daughter projects, "Fentury".

Article was originally created in May by a paid editor, current author claims not to be paid.

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am respecting that you analized the sources, however, I might say with the confedence that I included the viable sources (contrary, there is only one quoted from a magazine). I followed all the other encyclopedia examples such as Divido and others, and also the wikipedia rules such as WP:RS. --Sabrina.ok (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider salting. This article is nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE standards. Most of the sources are either databases, blog posts, or written by affiliates of the company (i.e. not significant coverage in RS). Only two citations come even close to being significant coverage in a reliable source: [19] and [20]. However, the former has no byline, which throws its reliability into doubt, and the latter is still quite short of being significant coverage and appears to be republished from another source without clear attribution (What is LTP?), so its reliability is doubtful as well. And even if these were reliable sources, we'd still be short of WP:ORGCRITE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no RS can be found. Self-promotional article with COI in doubt.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am convinced that the current format of the article is highly superior to the previous one. The content of the article neutral, without any promotion and advertisement. I agree that there are few viable sources (by the way, I would like to add some sources however as I see I cannot intervine). As it was said before, I consulted the other articles such as: Center of Financial Technologies, Deal sourcing, Itautec, Hyosung, FEXCO, CogitalGroup, Acorns (company) and many others. I would like to state the quality of the above-mentioned articles, sometimes, is shoddy. Thus, I am requesting to be removed the label to develop this article further, and I wish to be involved in developing of the other articles that have the similar problems. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Written like an an advertisement. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator's explanation is comprehensive and sound. Per Thjarkur, Rosguill, and Doug Mehus. See also my comments earlier this month at User talk:Athaenara#Salt Edge Inc.* – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Now User talk:Athaenara/Archive 13#Salt Edge Inc.)* – Athaenara ✉ 20:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I start from the idea that the related company is not a recently established. They are people, which are certainly interested to be informed in this regard. From my side, I understand your feedback to this article. I am also an old reader of the encyclopedia, which has led me to participate with possible contributions. Like all of us, those who contribute to the development of the platform, I also respect my time to write something of good quality. As for the sources, I am assuring you that they will be updated in due course. I carefully analyzed the information placed before the article was proposed to be deleted and after. I disagree that it is an advertisement, I respected Wikipedia policies. I would be really interested to understand the existing logic related to the keeping of the articles before created, which however, do not correspond to the Wikipedia rules, and moreover, which clearly have the sense of promotion and publicity, in comparison with the new contributions, which are more qualitative both in providing the information and policies protection, are proposed to be deleted.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sabrina.ok, Thank you for that thoughtful, reflective, and understanding response. For clarity, your writing is quite good and, in my view, meets WP:NPOV. It's mostly objective, save for maybe the "Awards" category. That's not really in question; it's a question of whether multiple WP:RS (I require at least 3, and preferably, 5) exist to write more than a stub-class article. You might consider writing your article on Everipedia, which takes more of an inclusionist philosophy, or on Fandom. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for understanding, in fact, from the very beginning I keen on doing the text compliant with the WP:NPOV. Regarding the "Awards" chapter, I do not mind to exclude it. However, in the similar articles I found this chapter. As for the WP:RS chapter, which is in fact, the key reason for deleting the article, I emphases that there are two sources that are compliant with WP:RS. Then, I identified more sources that meets that policy. Moreover, it should be considered that this is a developing company and the viable sources will appear for sure. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrina.ok: I don't think you have to take "Awards" out, that's a side issue not germaine to this AfD. Looking at the as written sourcing, I'm not seeing any independent, reliable sources. There's a few fintech digital publications, which could be blogs—their independence and, crucially, editorial oversight and control has not been established. They're OK for supporting trivial details worthy of including, but not for establishing notability. (As an aside, I also do not consider CNN to be a reliable source, for similar reasons, but I digress.) As well, one other aspect worth noting is even if you can find independent sources to establish notability (WP:Notability/WP:NCORP, which are the key policies to reference here), you also need to consider both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Hope this helps. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrina.ok: Assuming this AfD results in a delete, you may want to consider creating a sub-page of your userpage to draft this article (i.e., User:Sabrina.ok/Draft:Salt Edge Inc.) and copying the text over to that draft wherein you can improve sourcing, assuming it exists, and then submit the article for review through Articles for Creation process, which helps to protect against future AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:06, 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. Based on comments in the discussion, I will not delete any of the redirects pointing to this page; any interested editor(s) can repoint them to an appropriate new target. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in The Saga of Seven Suns[edit]

List of planets in The Saga of Seven Suns (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 fancruft list of something planets. While one source is a review, we need a second review to satisfy GNG, not the book. ミラP 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラP 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A review of a single book in the series is absolutely worthless in support of an in-universe list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Saga of Seven Suns. There appear to be reviews for all the books in the series there, but mentions of these many planets are minimal so adding the citations here will still not establish notability.— TAnthony^Talk 19:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable, in-universe plot information that belongs elsewhere. TTN (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I do not think a redirect would be helpful as I cannot imagine that someone would type this out as a search term. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that there are numerous redirects to this list, which would be corrected by bot if this list is redirected (to avoid double redirects). Of course, if deletion is really preferred I suppose I can use AWB to fix all the redirects manually.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Non-notable and entirely fancruft..._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajni KC[edit]

Rajni KC (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)

(Alternate speling of "Rajani KC": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPOLITICIAN says that unelected candidates are not inherently notable, nor does her educational position make her notable. Also fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Nothing but routine coverage on the recent candidacy, it's not even a major party. Nothing suggesting the subject yet meets GNG, NPROF or NPOL, in english or Nepali sources. Quite certainly a PR campaign aimed at the election (created by a COI editor). Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this makes no other strong claim that she has any preexisting notability for other reasons: neither being deputy administrator of a university, nor being on her political party's organizing committee, are instant notability freebies that would exempt a person from having to have a lot more reliable source media coverage than just a couple of short blurbs verifying and reverifying and rereverifying her unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, unsuccessful-- the candidacy is for a new election, a seat made vacant prematurely, not that it makes a difference to the point. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She was "deputy administrator" of Pokhara University. That is a title to sounds to me like it could be something quite high up in faculty (potentially indicating notbability), or it could be very minor. I don't know anything about how Nepali universities are organized, but it seems like something worth looking into. LadyofShalott 15:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  LadyofShalott, it looks like she was a deputy administrator at the Uni. This list is probably of the ones that have NPROF claims, while this list looks like the kind she might have belonged to. I am quite certain the position doesn't accord her inherent notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 13:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:09, 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 Withdrawn and renominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demographics and culture of Bhat (2nd nomination) Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics and culture of Bhat[edit]

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. Beyond the nominator, who argues for deletion, there is someone with a redirect !vote who also suggests the topic is notable. Two subsequent editors then seem to focus on process, accepting this redirect !vote's assessment of notability, rather than the specifics of this article and its notability (or lack there of). After two relisting with no further discussion there has thus been no further discussion and so there's not really a consensus to be had here. This close leaves open the opportunity for someone to improve the article and demonstrate its notability, redirect it to a valid target, or renominate it for deletion but for now the status quo remains. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300[edit]

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300 (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)

Sourcing is merely routine, directory-type sources that don't prove WP:SIGCOV. Also nominating 2018 NextEra Energy Resources 250, 2018 Active Pest Control 200 and 2018 Rinnai 250 for the same reason. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and the 2018 NASCAR Xfinity Series respectively. These races are notable but in the state that its currently in and the best that can probably be done is a redirect to those series pages. If someone recreate those pages then they would be welcome to do so. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't understand the rush to delete. The page was prodded 3 hours after it was created, and then brought to AfD a day later. It doesn't seem to have had any page curation tags placed on it before that. The Talk page was created by the prodding editor - it has no Wikiprojects on it. Why not add Wikiprojects to the talk page and add tags to the article that it needs better sourcing? If the races are notable, per WP:ARTN ("Article content does not determine notability") and WP:NPOSSIBLE ("before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search"), it would surely be better to allow other editors to improve the articles than to delete or redirect them. A quick search of Google News and Newspapers.com shows that there was coverage. I have no interest in car races, but I am sure that there are editors who do, who could improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per RebeccaGreen. A lot of effort has gone into creating this article and it is discouraging to the new editor to have it and the other articles he has written treated in this way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 12 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 no consensus for the deletion of this article, after extended time for discussion. Opinions may vary as to whether coverage of the receipt of an award or honor constitutes coverage of the award or honor. bd2412 T 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International 2019[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific International 2019 (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 about the 2019 edition of a beauty pageant that in itself is non-notable, sourced only to a personal blog (pageantopolis.com) and the pageant's own website. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment although I agree with nominator that the current sourcing is horrible, in the interest of not perpetuating systemic bias, I'm postponing my !vote until I see if another editor comes up with sources we did not find. Maybe there are regional or national media in a language other than English. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable subject. Wide media coverage. Includes reliable references. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wide media coverage" where, please? Just stating this then leaving the AfD debate isn't persuasive. Also note that "It's of interest around the globe" is the very first example of an argument to avoid in deletion debates under WP:FARAWAY. – Bri.public (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is sufficient local media coverage of this event and the personal blogs may be removed and be replaced by the references from newspapers. This is notable worthy. Only a clean-up will do. I can do it but I am going to bed now. Leaning to weak keep vote. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The global news outlets, e.g. China (cite #1) and Vietnam (cite #7), are covering individual people, not the pageant per se. And we can ignore pageantopolis.com (cite #5 and #6) as having no evidence that it is a RS – in fact it is WP:SPS. Of course the pageant site itself (cite #8) doesn't work either. So we have generously three RSes that covered this. As to the prior comment, "local coverage" does not sustain a decision to keep an article per consensus, as noted at WP:DIVERSE.

Finally, the biggest problem here is WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE, which is extremely unlikely to be met for an edition of an annual pageant – the three potential RSes noted just above are all from the month of October, 2019. – Bri.public (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete regretfully; not seeing anything great offered in terms of sources, per my edits immediately above (bri.public is me). Especially so if the one-sentence Global Times source is indicative of what we can expect in international sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I reject the argument that we need WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE - we have WP:NTEMP It is notable now. Wm335td (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Asia Pacific International, possibly merge. I'm not seeing much substantial coverage of this particular edition. Sandstein 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two re-lists there is no-consensus emerging here. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclaw[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. There are reviews but not by any well-known or highly-followed sources. Google search for Ironclaw Holmgren fails to reveal non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Conversely, a google search for Ironclaw RPG reveals non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see a lot of results but not any reliable sources; if there are some they should be added to the article. ... discospinster _talk 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A quick look at the sources does show an improvement over the version of the article which was deleted a few months ago, although I would be happier if fewer of them from youtube – hopefully there are better reliable sources out there than what we have so far. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of the problem here is that the initial release of this (like several other RPGs) was around the turn of the century, in print magazines; for example, digging in alt.fan.furry I found a mention of Knights of the Dinner Table #47, which seems like it might be a reliable source (note that it's far more than a comic. And indeed, it looks like Ironclaw's Rinaldi expansion is listed as one of "Brian's Picks". I can't see what it says without ponying up $2.99 - although it is asserted here that it was "pretty positive" (assuming that is the same review). Perhaps another editor here happens to have that issue in their collection? Nowadays, it looks like much reviewing of games does take place on YouTube (e.g. the 7 Realms Ironclaw reviews) - in part because it helps to see the product being reviewed. But I am no expert on who would be a notable reviewer in this context. GreenReaper (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would consider a review in the KODT magazine to be an independent reliable source. RPGnet's page on that magazine issue does indeed say that there was such a review. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked someone who believes they have a copy to see if they can find out what it says. Might not be instantly to hand since it's almost two decades old. Not sure about the protocol for copyright there if others here wish to review it, but judging by other issues of the magazine it won't be a huge part of the work. GreenReaper (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm confident we can establish notability per WP:RS and WP:GNG to a level commensurate with related topics. We'll dig for more. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unconvinced that there are enough reliable sources for this to be notable. The game has several reviews but most of them are from Youtubers rather than established sites. The article should have been recreated with a proper draft on account of the prior deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While I am open to changing my vote if new sources arise, I didn't find any. It looks like we currently have 1 source worth mentioning, and I don't know how in depth The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible is. Does anyone have a copy of the 2nd edition to see what it actually says on the subject? Rockphed (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been trying to find more. Unfortunately even stuff from this decade is bitrotting, but I dug up a copy of the review of Ironclaw 2nd ed. by Iron Liz (Elizabeth Skochil), from the "Pen and Paper Corner" (IMDB), Series 1, Episode 6 "Ironclaw". You might want to skip to the actual review (03:54+) which details the setting, character building and game mechanics for fifteen minutes; prior to that is fluff addressing the fact that, yes, it's a furry RPG. Why is this notable coverage? Well, Iron Liz was an affiliate of Channel Awesome, which at the time was a significant online publisher; the original review post (but not self-commentary) was posted (and received comments) on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com, home of the Nostalgia Critic, as an embedded video ultimately hosted on blip.tv (and now down, hence why I linked to a backup on YouTube). The review goes into enough detail to back an overview of the game mechanics, as well as criticism of the combat system, though it neglects the magic system (the self-commentary suggests this is due to production time constraints); I also saw it mentioned years later as where people had heard about the game. GreenReaper (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since the comment above, additional sources have been found. Both first and second editions - separated by over a decade, not counting expansions and spinoff novels - have at least one instance of published third-party coverage; though I'd like to see the first edition's coverage to judge its significance. Some references to the second edition are self-serving inasmuch as they comes from publishers or retailers with a vested interest; but the Iron Liz review does not appear to be - while generally positive, it offers criticism of certain features. This instance of the article does not go into excessive systems detail (if anything, it could draw more on features covered in said review); what's there now is backed by references. The claim regarding relative notability compares it to closely-related RPGs covered here, at a particular time; the citation (but, bizarrely, not the assertion) was removed by another editor, but nonetheless it remains accurate. There is evidence of sustained presence at major U.S. furry conventions (first, second and fifth by attendance) to the present day, and while some citations regarding this have also been removed, I found another in Fred Patten's Furry Fandom Conventions, 1989-2015. GreenReaper (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based only on the sources in the article, I'm convinced that maybe one of them passes WP:GNG (the interview as described above.) Everything else appears to be either unreliable, not independent, or not WP:SIGCOV. I also have no problem in the future with undeletion/draftifying if others think sources can be found, but can't support a keep in its current state. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The game was analyzed in the New York University Doctoral Thesis "Narrative and identity in fantasy role -playing games" by Ken Lacy; Advisor Gregory R. Guy, 2006. Not sure what wikipedia's thoughts are on doctoral theses in regards to WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have seen them used as sources before, but that might be better posed as a question to say WP:RSN or something like that. BOZ (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BOZ: Thanks. I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Doctoral Theses considered reliable sources?. Request to closing admin to relist again in order to give the RSN conversation time to give input on whether this source counts toward WP:SIGCOV. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unlike most theses, this one isn't free to view. It would be nice if someone with access to proquest to verify that the coverage in this source is significant. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have access to proquest from my university library and read the article. It's a significant topic in the thesis.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. WP:RSN confirmed that a doctoral thesis is a reliable source because it goes through rigorous academic peer review. The disertation given by Ken Lacy is significant coverage of Ironclaw. This in conjunction with the sources provided by GreenReaper are enough to satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Actually, the RSN ("Are Doctoral Theses considered reliable sources".) didn't discuss whether Lacy's Dissertation was acceptable as a source to establish notability. As was pointed out in the discussion and noted in the guidelines for the acceptability of academic sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations written as part of the requirements for a doctorate should be used with caution. Additionally, most doctoral theses are primary sources. Primary sources are not independent as required by WP:GNG. To establish whether or not a source has it been accepted and supported by the mainstream academic community we generally use the citations it has received in citation indexes. This thesis doesn't appear in high regard in the academic community as Google scholar show only 9 citations in a field where you would expect a citation count in the 100+ area. "Google scholar search". CiteSeerx show no results for author or paper. According to reliable sources guidelines, this paper could be consider reliable for the author's opinion and possibly the author's conclusions but not much else. CBS527^Talk 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This classification of a doctoral dissertation as "primary" and "not independent" in the context of Ironclaw doesn't make sense to me. What the guideline actually says is that "[Completed dissertations and theses] are often, in part, primary sources". The dissertation abstract makes clear that it examines the use of language within RPGs. The author did not write Ironclaw itself - he wrote about its use of language. This is likely to include both facts and opinion about Ironclaw; a portion that might be considered primary is the author's own ideas on language, set in relation to secondary source material, such as a summary of Ironclaw's use of language. To put it another way: Ironclaw is notable as it was selected for analysis by an independent academic (Ken Nozaki Lacy), with guidance from other academics (such as doctoral advisor and committee co-chair Dr. Mary Bucholtz, who was herself an invited speaker on identity in role-playing games in 2001-2), leading to facts and analysis of it being published by independent third-parties (New York University/ProQuest), which in turn was cited in other secondary or tertiary sources. I'm not sure what basis an arbitrary number of citations has been given, or indeed what field is being talked about (Role-playing games? Linguistics?), but it'd be great if someone with ProQuest access could actually use this source to obtain and cite a statement within Wikipedia's article on the topic, as evidence of its relevance for our purposes. GreenReaper (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek planet classification[edit]

Star Trek planet classification (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 fictional topic TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the Star Trek planet lists. Should include the description on the list page's introduction section, instead of making this act as a content page with brief descriptions of it. However, I don't agree that it is completely worthless, as the nominator mentioned, I just want it to be merged.WikiAviator (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there was a Star Trek planet article worth merging it to, I'd say merge, but the ones here are pure WP:ALLPLOT fancruft. So, I don't think this has a place on Wikipedia at the moment._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that for the articles that list the planets, for example List of Star Trek planets (A–B), perhaps we can put that bit of description into the article, and after this process of fitting descriptions, delete it. I am not saying that this should not be deleted, but some content can be transferred while some should be deleted.WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only one of these that I would expect to have any currency outside of Star Trek fandom itself is class M (Earthlike). I've seen that invoked occasionally in news items about exoplanets, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think merging is is a great idea, that article you suggested is big enough already, there are books on the subject, but just passes GNG in my view. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No out-of-universe significance. I'm also going to nominate List of Star Trek planets (A–B) for deletion as a test case. Release the Kraken Doomsday Machine. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is like a glossary without any relevance to the real-world, so no proper article could ever be written about it to satisfy per WP:PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:15, 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. The argument that any coverage was local has not been rebutted. Deletion in the Polish Wikipedia is also an indicator of insignificance. Sandstein 13:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Ola Kozłowska[edit]

Aleksandra Ola Kozłowska (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)

Not seeing what makes her pass WP:NBIO. Some achievements 'sound' impressive but I can't find much about them (US Open Bachata Championship, etc., all red links), not sure if this falls under NSPORT or NMUSIC. There is a a bit in Polish, but not that much: [21] interview in minor news outlet, one more in Polish-American radio [22]... . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no actual claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has now been deleted from pl wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct; see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2019:10:07:Aleksandra Ola Kozłowska. Geolodus (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I did find some more coverage where she was the main subject under her new married name: [23], [24], [25]. The article should probably be moved to Aleksandra Stańco-Kozłowska. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources 4meter has found establish notability. 1st and 2nd are pure WP:INTERVIEWS without any indepth reporting outside of what the subject has said, and the third is not a WP:SIGCOV ("Aleksandra Stańco-Kozłowska became the champion of Warmia and Mazury in the Open Latin Freestyle 2017 category. This means that she will take part in the Polish Cup planned for November."). Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay and not policy. The sources (the ones in the article and the ones I provided collectively) show sustained coverage over a number of years within her field, and they support her competition wins at notable events within her artform. Within this particular area, interviews in the media are the most likely place for quality sourcing and the greatest indicator of notability. Not acknowledging that is a biased perspective that is likely to systemically impede coverage on notable international ballroom dancers encyclopedia wide.4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But I will also point out the sources are WP:LOCALCOVERAGE newspaper/radio for the medium-size city of Olsztyn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Asim[edit]

Syed Muhammad Asim (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)

Procedural nomination per WP:DRAFTIFY after a draftification was reverted. Draftifying reason was Undersourced, incubate in draftspace, which was reverted with the reason this is a celrbity Iffy★Chat -- 11:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. If he has actually—provenly—played first-class cricket, then he automatically passes WP:NCRIC. On the other hand, if he doesn't, then I want to know more about the teams that he supposedly has played for. We don't seem to have an article on any of them: indeed, one of them appears to ba a bank, with no mention of cricket in its article. What gives? ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Habib Bank Limited cricket team, but can't find any evidence he ever played for them either ([26]). Spike 'em (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can find no record of him being a first-class or List-A cricketer (so have removed claims from article). No record of him on Cricinfo Pakistani players list or cricketarchive Quetta list using any of "Syed Muhammad Asim", "Muhammad Asim" or Syed Muhammad, so he fails WP:NCRIC. No evidence that he passes WP:GNG, a google search finds just his twitter account. It seems to be an autobiography with some made up / exaggerated claims. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - honestly can't confirm that this person actually exists. To me it looks like their Twitter account was hijacked by a spammer some time around April, who then also created a Facebook profile for them, and began using both accounts to spam links for a telephone service. Prior to that they have what you'd expect of a professional athlete's social media profile: selfies, game photos, memes about rival teams, and so on. But he does not say what teams he plays for in that profile, for one thing, and also his official website is offline, and the only link in the article that might have been a reference is broken. Plus what everyone else has said about not being able to figure out which teams he claims to have played for. I'd be fine with returning this to draft space if I had faith that the creator was going to find sources and improve it, but their "this is a celebrity" rationale for reverting the move is not promising in that regard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Frankly, this article gives me Alejandro Almeida vibes. It seems to me that a user created this article as a hoax, similar to what I and a few other users dealt with over there. As you can see from the List of people from Quetta article, someone cunningly inserted the fictional cricketeer into other articles, creating the illusion of inbound and outbound links to this article without actually offering a scintilla of WP:RS to validate that the article meets the WP:GNG or that the subject even exists. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)^{(CU blocked, ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC))}[reply]

• Delete – Even if this person exists there's a major COI since the creator of the article is the person the article is about. 90.232.32.184 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no reliable, independent sources, and I can't find anything myself in a good faith search. --Jayron32 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all and the fact that the user who predominately wrote it also appears to be the subject. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any sources when I did a search for them. I'm not even convinced that this person exists. While the article was created by someone who has the same name first, middle, and last name as the subject, it weirdly is devoid of any basic facts as well. You would think someone writing an article about themselves would know the names of their own mother and father instead of leaving those fields as "Unknown" on the infobox... Michepman (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - and did nobody notice that this is an autobio? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kudpung At least three users (myself, TheDragonFire300, Spike) noted that it was an autobiography and/or that the author and the article subject had the same exact name... Michepman (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right. Sorry, I missed it when I briefly scanned through the votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per above , lacks coverage by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "He might exist" is not a persuasive argument in favor of keeping the article. ——SN54129 15:04, 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 keep (revert to disambiguation page). (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

Importance (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)

Delete as per WP:NOTDICT  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTDICT. [I don't know anything about AfD so will not contribute to subsequent discussion.] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to disambiguation page and lock it in that status. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Importance&oldid=672199163 . This is just a DICDEF as it stands, and to the extent there's an article to be had, the disambig page will have links to Social status and notability. SnowFire (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Revert to disambiguation page. While the topic article only gives a dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT is not a basis for deletion in this instance. To use as an example, let's take an article named Subsequent. (After coming up with this as an example, I found out that it exists as a cross-project redirect. Ignore that.) What would an article about the word "subsequent" be about? To my knowledge, there is no real encyclopedic information that can be associated with the term, so it doesn't warrant an entry in Wikipedia. However, it is a word that does indeed exist, so it should be an entry in Wiktionary instead. Now, for importance. The term importance is actually important, in the sense that there are encyclopedic topics that are known as "importance". These could be, but not limited to, the philosophy of importance and/or value, relative importance, social importance, etc. SnowFire points out that a disambiguation page used to exist here, which is what should be restored in this case. Utopes (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to disambiguation page per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to disambiguation page - given the how central the concept of notability is to Wikipedia (which is related to importance) makes sense to return to the disambiguation page per SnowFire. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the ban or block, with no substantive edits by other users. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Sanders (gastroenterologist)[edit]

David Sanders (gastroenterologist) (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 does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Khani, Arzuiyeh[edit]

Hoseynabad-e Khani, Arzuiyeh (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 sources to prove that this location actually exists. All links in the reflist are dead or unaccessible. Can't see any structures on Google Earth, can only see a road. WikiAviator (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer, dead links are not a cause for deletion. I've warned the nominator about the implied bad faith in this and other nominations. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Acroterion said, Wikipedia is a gazetteer per WP:5P. The dead link has been archived, and link maintenance is not cause for deletion anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND, a pass of which is confirmed by the very much live archive link in the second reference. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND.[27] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:36, 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 keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sharer[edit]

Stephen Sharer (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 wp:rs fails wp:gng Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sharer is one of the most subscribed youtuber with over 2 billion channel views thats passes WP:GNG and he has been covered by Newsweek, Cbslocal, PEOPLE magazine and others. Aksnahar (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I did a little research and according to socialblade.com, he is in "TOP 250 YOUTUBERS ENTERTAINMENT CHANNELS SORTED BY SUBSCRIBERS" and "TOP 5000 INFLUENTIAL YOUTUBE CHANNELS" I have added this new reference. I feel his stats are significant enough to be notable and also he has some notable coverage such as Newsweek and People, as above editor has already mentioned. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I wouldn't say it lacks RS. There are plenty of sources from the media on him along these lines like People (here), CBS NEWS ([28]), etc. He's got a big following and he gets a lot of sustained attention in the light and fluffy kind of media stories. He's a celebrity of sorts.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 31 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chen[edit]

Jay Chen (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)

Appears to fail WP:NPOL - wasn't elected to congress or similar Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to say whoever write this is really good to put Chen's best foot forward; but does not tell the whole story. Being a Mt. college Board of Trustees, school District school board member does not qualify to meet WP:NPOL and moreover he lost the to Ed Royce in 2012 for the California's 39th congressional district race which it does not state in the article - see HERE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so having been an unsuccessful congressional candidate in 2012 has no bearing on his notability at all — but the roles he has held, on the board of trustees of a public community college and a local school board, are not roles that guarantee a person a Wikipedia article either, and this is referenced nowhere near well enough to make him a special case. To be considered notable enough for an article on these grounds, the bar he would have to clear is that he's been the subject of much, much more nationalized coverage than the norm for these roles, thus making him much more nationally notable than the hundreds of thousands of other people who've done the same things without getting Wikipedia articles for them. The references are a primary source board member profile on the college's own self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source at all; a very short blurb about him withdrawing from a primary, which is not substantive coverage; and a glancing mention of his existence in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree. This is not how you make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 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. The opinions of new editors and IP !voters are discounted due to their likely unfamiliarity with the criteria for inclusion. Outside of those, consensus is clear that this subject does not yet meet those criteria. bd2412 T 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Kwame Wiafe[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Nana Kwame Wiafe (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)

Dubious notability , over-emphasis on personal life and political ambitions, possibly promotional DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nana Kwame Wiafe is a well-known Ghanaian household name. From the article's references, you can tell of his notability. I do not get why the word 'Dubious' as used by DGG makes the article unfit for Wikipedia. There are several references from Google News to satisfy our doubts. An example of a dubious notable person from Ghana is this Geezygee (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is a well known Entrepreneur, it is quite unfortunate the Ghanaian media writes more on his wealth either than his works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.11.9 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This person is a reputable person in the Ghanaian community. See https://www.google.com/search?q=Nana+Kwame+Wiafe&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&oq=nana+Kwame+Wiafe&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i59j69i60l3.2120j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
• Keep - The article is well sourced. Coming from Africa where news comes more often in papers, I believe the article is notable enough to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.10.73 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The person in particularly mostly referred to as Nana Wan is a popular figure in Ghana. Consider keeping this article.102.176.94.62 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment multiple IP voters who have found their way here with their first or second edit. Advise relisting Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article smacks of WP:PROMOTIONAL I do not see a notable person Wm335td (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - refer to https://g.co/kgs/xqJcQN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezygee (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He seems like some quasi-celebrity, probably a social influencer; Coverage doesn't seem to be in depth and appears of shallow quality. He may become notable if he is elected to office in the 2024 election; But wikipedia is not a crystal ball for predicting someone's success. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The person here is Nana Wan, a popular businessman in Ghana with well established businesses in Ghana. He was recently interviewed on a big radio station concerning him running for MP in the coming elections. Consider keeping this article.AlikotoSam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - several of the above "keep" votes have been made by single purpose accounts that have never edited before. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as self promotional. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Note to closer, possibly WP:SOCK or WP:CANVAS may be at work here.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 31 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 09:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Peabody[edit]

Rob Peabody (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)

Dreadfully promotional article about a non-notable individual. The sources used in the article are not independent or reliable: [29] is written by his own organization; the other two references are dead but one is from the site "Fresh Expressions" which Peabody is affiliated with and one is from a Christian music licensing site. A WP:BEFORE search for "Rob Peabody pastor", "Rob Peabody VOMO" etc. only brings up press releases, blogs and non-independent sites. Fails WP:GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - References are entirely lacking, and I can find nothing better. Fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I find nothing in WP:RS suggesting notability is met. Article is written in a wholly unencyclopedic manner. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the way it is written, it sounds like coat-rack spam: "the technology that is igniting a volunteer movement" and wording telling people to "join" the website by clicking on a link probably makes this a WP:CSD#G13 candidate. Since I've already !voted, I'll leave that to another set of eyes. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it reads like spam, and there's obvious COI editing going on too. I thought about nominating it for speedy deletion, but since it's been around since 2014 I decided to play it safe with AfD. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:31, 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. Tone 10:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nustar Fire[edit]

Nustar Fire (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Such fires happen every day around the world, and get noted in the national news media, and then in most cases forgotten again. If this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten, then is the time to create an article. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At least for now. The nomination seems to be a reason to not create the article. However it has already been created. As such, we should now wait (and without deleting) to see if "this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten". We can delete it in a few weeks, if so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the nomination is a reason not to have the article. We don't keep articles in the hope that they may turn out to be about notable subjects, e.g. many football player articles get created when they get a contract with a professional team, but we delete them and only let them be recreated when they have actually played for the team, which may be only a few weeks later as well. Furthermore, it is unlikely that lasting notability will somehow happen in a few weeks: if nothing happens with the fire, then lasting notability is very unlikely to happen in even a few years, unless it somehow leads to some new law or something similar. There is nothing in the article as it stands to suggest that this fire will be notable at any time.
  • A compromise could be to move it to draft space, and let it get moved back to mainspace if it becomes a notable fire. Fram (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now This could easily become a notable event, similar to e.g. the Buncefield fire. As it's already been created there's not need to draftify at this point. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, fire started and contained on 15 October, article created 415AM of 16 October, way too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that this fire is still being covered in reliable sources. Additionally, there may well be some kind of inquiry into it which may well extend coverage. Again, the comparison is the Buncefield fire, which was also a fuel-depot fire, but certainly became notable. Per WP:LASTING "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". This is such a case - it seems entirely possible that this will be anotable event so we should wait to see it's impact. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill event of no lasting significance. Claiming it may become notable falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now relevant policies WP:NORUSH and WP:NTEMP Wm335td (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is an essay, not a policy: the second is part of a policy and needs to be read in combination with the immediately following section WP:SUSTAINED, which this one by definition doesn't meet (yet?); basically, while "once notable, always notable" is a rule, the problem is that "once notable" cannot be established without sustained, not short-lived, coverage. Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram - please familiarise yourself fully with WP:LASTING, particularly this bit: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Basically,, if it seems plausible that people will still be talking about this in a few months then we should keep for now. In this case, we know that there have been similar incidents (the Buncefield fire) that met notability, we know that there is still coverage of this event (air quality, potential link to an earthquake) in reliable source as of this week, we know that there will eventually be a report on the cause of the fire that may well receive WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with that page, thank you. That fire you keep referring to was " the biggest of its kind in peacetime Europe and certainly the biggest such explosion in the United Kingdom since the 1974 Flixborough disaster": "Because of an inversion layer, the explosions were heard up to 125 miles (200 km) away; there were reports that they were audible in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands". There are countless other fires comparable to the Nustar fire which don't have lasting notability, and which consequently don't have an article here. Taking an exceptional fire, with clear claims as to why it was exceptional, as a reason to keep a run-of-the-mill one because there is a small chance that it may turn out to be notable eventually, perhaps, who knows, it putting the cart before the horse. Fram (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were familiar with that page, then you should have taken account of the potential for further coverage. Indeed, just a search of today's ongoing coverage in reliable sources of the fire shows that it is still ongoing. E.g., It turns out that Nustar didn't notify Hazmat officials about the fire, it also turns out that regulations about tank-farms may well change as a result of the disaster, all big indicators of likely ongoing coverage and potential lasting impact. You're saying this is a "dime-a-dozen", but not providing any explanation for why, if it is a "dime-a-dozen" fire, it's still being covered ten days later and regulatory changes are being proposed as a result of it. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hich all looks like routine coverage in the immediate aftermath. Just like when you get some crime which makes regional headlines, and then gets minor regional followup accounts about investigation, arrest, conviction. Google News lists only 11 reports over the last week[30], all of them from local/regional news (either a local source, or the local section of a larger news outlet). If news coverage dwindles this rapidly, it isn't a fire with "lasting" effect and notability (based on what we know now). Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petty crime doesn't lead to changes in the law, nor even anyone proposing changes in the law. However, in this case, regulatory changes are being proposed - which is a classic indicator of notability as it shows it "act[ing] as a precedent or catalyst for something else" per WP:LASTING. Ten days isn't "dwindling quickly". FOARP (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"County regulations" (which is what may be changed here, "the county's industrial safety ordinance") are not the same as the kind of laws referenced in WP:LASTING though. Local regulations are in itself not even notable, and get changed all the time following events with a local impact. Neither the ordinances nor the things that lead to them are in most cases notable. Fram (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site is also under investigation by state and federal officials, so this is not just a county-level-issue, nor are the regulatory changes being discussed only county-level. For example the quake-check regulations are state regulations. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different issue than state law being changed. There seems to be no evidence that changes to national or state-wide quake-check regulations are being proposed, where did you get this information? They are looking at whether there was a link between a quake and the fire, but that is not the kind of thing which wp:lasting is about. Trying to determine the cause of a fire is a normal step. Fram (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram - It's pretty clear that when people are reporting that the "quake-check" under state-law which has to be performed for most depots, but not this one because of the nature of the site, that this regulation is being looked at. It's also likely that a state and federal investigation into the fire/explosion is going to issue a state/federal-level report which may well include regulatory changes. At this point in time we don't actually need to have those changes in hand because we're still in the initial "weeks or months" period under WP:LASTING. FOARP (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The nomination correctly states that "fires happen every day around the world", but then asserts that they "get noted in the national news media, and then in most cases forgotten again..."

  GNG is the relevant policy here. Fires that receive substantive covered by reliable sources merit an article, today.

  I thought policy was clear on this, as contributors, all of us, everyone voicing an opinion here, including me, including Jimbo Wales and our nominator, is supposed to understand that our personal opinions on the importance of topics is supposed to take a distant back seat to the opinions of authoritative reliable sources. Yet, the nomination seems to assert we should second guess those authoritative reliable sources, and put our judgement ahead of theirs, at some point in the future, when it asserts "If this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten, then is the time to create an article. "

  Consider murder. Murders are common, and, depressingly, similar. That is why we have articles about practically zero murders. Most murders are so similar that our articles on murder and related topics provide adequate coverage of them. Murders that are somewhat exceptional may merit a sentence, or a paragraph, or subsection in a related article. Murders that are quite exceptional may merit a standalone article, or even a cluster of articles. It should all depend on what authoritative reliable sources say, with a minimum of editorializing on our part. While "fires happen every day around the world", a brief web search shows that this fire had exceptional elements. [31] Responders didn't follow procedures, making the response worse. That merits a standalone article today, not months or years from now. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's still a news item 10 days after, though the big wildfires overshadow it; I just updated the article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have struck my "delete" as accepting that consensus is "keep" (although i am bemused by this wikiobsession with the almost instant creation of articles like this). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 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 keep. Tone 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Acharya[edit]

Karan Acharya (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)

WP:BLP1E applies here, the subject is notable only for one event. Not meeting WP:NARTIST. Large part of the content is unsourced and appear to be original research. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nom grounds are badly wrong. This is an artist mainly known for one work - that is not at all what WP:BLP1E covers. There seems a good case for him meeting WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST, though this is not a conventional fine art career. Irf he is not notable, his best-known graphic probably is. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, BLP1E does not accord with artists and their single or multiple works. You have misunderstood the rationale here. The subject's demand for copyright of his work made headlines in the newspaper during mid 2018. That event made him popular,and nomination is referring to that event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, BLP1E may be applicable. Apart from that, notability can not be inherited, even if his best-known graphic is notable. Hitro talk 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article was speedy deleted at last AFD two months ago, by author request, then recreated Sept 14th 2019.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST but present tone is too promotional. Article must be written from scratch and I will do once this is deleted. This is garbage for Wikipedia now. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles to rewrite them was my point (see below). Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Harshil169 why would you want to delete it and then rewrite? Rather let's enhance the article, I am working on collating a list of independent references that help us do that Amitized (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Amitized[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. It does need weeding of promotion, but that isn't of concern to this AFD. Harshil169 can always improve the article from its current condition.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST relevant policy WP:NOTCLEANUP an editor can remove the promotional feel, but that is not a good deletion rationale. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is notable, and passes the encyclopedia criteria WP:ARTIST. The article needs clean up to remove any promotional language, which is an easy task, and not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 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.