< 11 January	13 January >

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. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sai-in (Western Precinct)[edit]

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

Seems nothing more than a WP:DICDEF Mattg82 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything online.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this has few possibilities beyond a dictionary definition. Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- – It is nothing but a word in dictionary. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be better at Wiktionary Dartslilly (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is just a definition, which belongs on Wiktionary. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2020 (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 Chimera in popular culture. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The citations being used are either primary, or come from unreliable sources. Searches do not bring up anything better. It is already mentioned in the Chimera in popular culture, so perhaps the name space can be turned to a redirect after deletion, but as that list is, itself, a pretty big mess of unsourced and trivial information, I wouldn't say that is entirely necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect/merge to one of these many targets. Chimera Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber below, or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as two external sources supplied) or merge to Chimera, as they refer to the same entity with the same attributes....just a few thousand years apart...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chimera in popular culture. Alex-h (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chimera in popular culture. As the article is sourced entirely to primary sources, with the possible exception of one which simply used to state “This creature appeared in this book” and nothing more, it fails WP:GNG Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srikaran Kandadai[edit]

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

Fails basic notability criteria for athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; the source in the article is the only instance of significant coverage (barely, excluding the interview) I can find and that will not push it over the bar, but it does reference his participation at the World Championships. However, he seems to meet WP:ATH by having participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (the Racquetball World Championships) and given he got a silver medal as referenced in the source I think that it is fair to say that he can be presumed to pass our notability standards. Racquetball is not a significant enough sport to have its own notability guideline, but the significance of the silver medal more than makes up for that (even though it's doubles). He barely passes WP:BLP1E as a high-profile individual arguably given this as even though it is only an explanatory supplement it is linked from a policy so it carries some degree of importance. It also states that some subject specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event which would exclude it from WP:BIO1E as well. All in all, I believe that this article is barely notable, and I think that this discussion should have resulted in a demonstration of notability as well. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches[edit]

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

Few sources, no demonstration of notability. Why are these sketches notable and why do we need a list of them? Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sketches are an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows Late Night with Conan O'Brien and The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. Abstrakt (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstrakt, but nothing in the article indicates their importance or notability. Popcornduff (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plausible content fork of Late Night. p b p 04:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, are you not concerned that almost nothing in the article is cited and there is no indication of these sketches' individual notability? I notice since adding your vote you have added more uncited original research to the article - why? Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you badgering everybody who votes keep? Also, for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable. p b p 21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry that I appear to be badgering you, and I was conscious that it might come across that way when I responded. I decided to go ahead anyway because I find the two responses to this nom so far surprising - they don't seem to be responding to the problems I raised (lack of sources and no demonstration of notability). That is why I'm challenging you.

I do not think the burden is on the nominator to prove something is not notable. It's tough to prove a negative. Instead we have to agree that the notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG. Picking some of the sketches at random, I can't find any independent reliable sources covering them at all, let alone the sketches "as a collective" as you put it. Popcornduff (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to ConanWiki: this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia, and an excellent level of detail for Wikia. I can add the content to Wikia if needed, with URL attribution (maybe even a list of editors). As for what happens to the page here, well, until someone starts showing us some reviews of individual sketches then it's a ~~delete~~ from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Gonnym, I'm striking the delete and replacing it with a keep, but I believe the list does need rewriting from scratch, with us only including sketches covered by reliable secondary sources. I also believe the rest of the content is a good fit for Wikia and I'll look at adding it there, whether or not the content is kept here. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Bilorv, if this article is kept, is anyone who votes keep going to rewrite it from scratch? It's been in a dire state for over a decade, tagged, with no improvement - and in fact since I nominated it for deletion, one of the keep voters has added more original research, which I personally find amazing. I think this is a WP:JUNK situation: Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of notable subjects. We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Popcornduff, you have really overstepped the line into badgering here. Do not ping me again in this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  All right, sorry to have gone too far there. Popcornduff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the state of the article isn't good, however I believe this is an essentinal part of the show. I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. There is a reason I and others like me, rather read here. Now for the notability part. It's kind of hard asking to get online(!) sources for something 20 years ago, however here are a few I found in 10 minutes of searching: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Sure, not the best sources, some might not be valid RS, but again, we are talking about a sub-topic of something that was 20 years ago. I'm also sure there are more RS dealing with this subject in print from the time. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, for this to meet WP:GNG, we have to see that enough individual sketches have had coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If these sources can be found then great, but you seem to suggest here that they can't. You might find the information personally interesting or useful but WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument. Popcornduff (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on how WP:GNG relates to sub-topics as the policy is mute on the topic. See for instance WP:NNC which says that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Now if this list was part of the main article, your augment about GNG would be irrelevant. However, merging it into the main article will lead to a bad user-experience, which is why we split long articles. I also don't think finding the sources is immpossible, just not something that can be found in AfD. That is probably more serious research and finding actual hard print papers. That said, finding sources which aren't the top of the RS food chain that do talk about it, you can find enough. I'll probably not comment again in this topic, so no point in pining me anymore. Also, while WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument (and wasn't my primary one either), nor is "send it to Wikia". --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, no problem if you don't want to contribute further. However, I don't think "send it to Wikia" was an argument for deleting it here. Bilorv instead said we should delete it as "this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia". The Wikia idea was just a good-faith suggestion for how this WP:INTERESTING information could be rehomed elsewhere on the web. Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. You're free to go wherever you want, but my reasoning is that (a) this content is not suitable for Wikipedia and (b) it would be a shame to delete it when it's clearly an enjoyable resource to some. Now you've added some sources, keeping the article looks plausible to me, but it would need to be absolutely blown up per our policies that Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, and that we're not a place for indiscriminate info (which lists "Summary-only descriptions of works" as its first example, and that's exactly what this list is). — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, personally, I do not think there are sources out there sufficient to create an article just for these sketches, even post WP:TNT. Yes, there are these bits of coverage like "best sketches" here and there on reliable sources, but they don't add up to a body of work where it's like "we simply cannot cover these sufficiently without their own page". Notable sketches can be covered where appropriate on articles about the shows themselves (such as Late Night with Conan O'Brien). Popcornduff (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective but after a bit of reflection, I disagree. Gonnym has shown to my satisfaction that there are enough sources for a stand-alone list—though the articles about the shows should definitely have critical reception in them—but that list should only cover sketches with secondary source coverage, not the enormous list there is at present. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, I getcha, but the problem with that is the article is called "List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches" which implies a degree of comprehensiveness - it would be a bit odd if it only comprised the handful of sketches we can find sources for, when there have been hundreds and hundreds of them - and it invites endless dumping of cruft (see the current article). Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many lists have titles with similar implications e.g. List of Russians. An "endless dumping of cruft" describes the whole of WP:TV, really, but the solution is editor maintenance. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, yes, fair enough. I remain skeptical that there is enough meat on the bones of these RSs to justify much coverage of the sketches though. Popcornduff (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gonnym. The sources he identified indicate notability, and I suspect they only begin to scratch the surface of what's available upon a wider search. — Hunter Kahn 02:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: WOW! The article has been tagged since 2008-09 which includes an WP:OR tag. The state of the article is horrendous. A problem I have (there are really more than one) is that many of the "Keep" !votes, such as "an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows", or "Plausible content fork of Late Night" are not remotely policy or guideline based. The one argument listing references, so more valid, is provided by Gonnym, that has swayed at least two other editors.

The selection criteria includes "... and supported by reliable sources" and "... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.". The article was created without using any episodes (only a few tagged with ^{[episode needed]}) and everything from the "Late Night sketches appearing on Tonight" section to the "Coked up Werewolf" subsection of the "Late Night sketches" section is unsourced.

The first source provided here is titled The 20 best Conan O'Brien late-night bits. The top 10 certainly has coverage and the "Masturbating Bear" could likely have a stand alone article. While I tend to think there is notability for "a list" (sub-topic) somewhat like this, "this list" has an issue with notability especially considering the criteria that includes sourcing.

This is not really complicated. The tags from 2008-09 mean that some attention is long overdue. If it is kept, as it appears it could be, will it be on a future AFD list? If it remains as "keep as is" it likely will be. Even if the provided extra sources are vetted and "all" are found reliable, that will not put a dent in the unsourced material. The policy on original research states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" and that is hard to disprove with the immense unsourced content. At a point something should be done. Currently it appears the list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources. The "tipping point" may very well be it needs completely rewritten, because "the damage is beyond fixing", and possibly limited to something like the "twenty" that is sourced. I do agree with Gonnym that there maybe more sources "out there" but that is not really a good enough reason to keep such an large mostly unsourced list article (especially considering the tags) that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines.

There is also a fallacy: "...for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable.", is simply a non-true statement. The "collective concept of sketches" is not even a consideration. WP:GNG is concerning an individual topic, AND-- it is still "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are several keep votes, several other folks have commented what seem to be delete votes, without actually stating their position. One should hope an extra week will give them time to write a vote down.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. Information for our readers. Too long for any merge. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Pinto[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not played professionally, and only award is being named to All-Rookie team of the USHL, which is not sufficient to establish notability. If/When he meets the criteria the article can be restored Kaiser matias (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now he passes WP:ANYBIO Pinto was named to the USHL all-rookie team in 2019 after leading all first-year players with 59 points in 59 games. He was also a member of the gold-medal winning American team at the IIHF World U18 Championship. WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: NORUSH pertains to articles that likely pass GNG. The applicable essay is WP:TOOSOON when it comes to subjects not gaining significant coverage but might one day. Ice hockey specifically has had problems with this in the past for thousands of articles like this getting created, never meeting GNG, and then being forgotten and never updated. It has taken years to clean the mess, so the hockey project may be less forgiving towards ANYBIO (which is specifically vague on the presumption of sources). Only GNG is sufficient here. Yosemiter (talk)02:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet the actual inclusion criteria for hockey notability. He may be on his way, but we wait until people are notable to create articles. Well, we are supposed to. We actually do not, which is why we have so many articles on people who never made it past an NFL pratice squad up for deletion. This is why we need to force all articles through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question is if he never accomplishes anything else will the awards i mentioned confer notability? Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. NHOCKEY does not confer presumptive notability to "all-rookie" teams at any level of play, nor to players in World U18 competition, gold-medal or otherwise. (Many such might meet the GNG, which of course is a different thing.) Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 02:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems a little harsh for a guy who missed NHOCKEY inclusion by ONE draft position, and has been covered in some depth by the Guardian and the Athletic. I don't know enough about those two publications to know whether they are local coverage or not though.18abruce (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If he has an in depth article in the Guardian on top of the Athletic article and the Hockey Writers article I think he would pass GNG and then NHOCKEY would be moot. But the Guardian article I am finding is this, and I think I would want a little more before saying definitively that he passes GNG (although it at least brings him to borderline GNG pass). Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pinto is one of the top scorers for the current #1 ranked NCAA hockey program, North Dakota. And he was the #1 Center for the 2020 World Juniors USA team. That was enough to make me want to look him up on Wikipedia. Also he had a recent mention in the Athletic which is impressive: theathletic.com The Comic Book Guy 18:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being mentioned in a list of prospects on The Athletic is very common. Here is a similar list of the first 107 picks of 2019. Every team has had about one paragraph written about every pick (eg Tampa Bay's picks go all the way to the 198th overall, Nashville's picks go to 210th, etc). If you go team-by-team on a dedicated sports website you'll find a roughly boilerplate paragraph on every player drafted, and the vast majority of them don't pan out.Citing (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Scouting reports for draft picks are extremely common through every round of the NHL draft (basically every player will have a paragraph written here or there regardless of notability) and the ones presented here are no exception . It's very possible he will make it to the pro leagues and meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY... but it's also very possible he won't and at the moment we're speculating.Citing (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources from Comic Book Guy. Fails NHOCKEY but passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has enough coverage to satisfy GNG, including lots of stories about him in the Grand Forks Herald (this and this are just 2 of many examples), plus The Hockey News, The Athletic, three paragraphs about him here, and several pieces (though none great by themselves) in the Ottawa Sun. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC per Rlendog's sources. Also, this nomination shows a major weakness in WP:NHOCKEY #5. The guy drafted ONE spot ahead of him is auto-notable, and would get unanimous "Keep" votes if sent to AfD, but he isn't? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ejgreen77: Yes, #5 is a bit arbitrary. But where should the arbitrary line be? Certainly not every second round draft pick meets GNG, something like 60-70% ever play in the NHL. Almost all first round picks get coverage after the fact, mainly due to being the team's top selection (if it was their first pick anyways). No NSPORTS SNG is perfect, but that is why they are written to meet GNG, and the first round is easier to define then "first round draft pick if it was the team's first pick of the draft and then the top couple of spots in the second round..." IMO, this is one of those borderline notables. They have a few decent sources as a prospect, but they are limited to just that: his amateur career. I have no strong opinion on keep or delete at this time. Yosemiter (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nommel Place, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many of these WP:GEOLAND fails. No WP:N and take a look at this map. If it is an unpopulated census tract or not legally recognized ares it needs RS. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The USGS topo map "Picacho SW", from which the GNIS entry was sourced, shows "Nommel Place [site]" with no other typical symbol. Looking at the satellite images shows nothing today. Searching finds it listed here, so I presume this is an old burial site. Clearly not a populated place of any kind or a location that otherwise meets GNG. It looks like there is List of cemeteries in California but not List of cemeteries in Arizona, so no place to redirect either. MB 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's the location of John Nommels' historic farm and possibly his mining claim as well. Made it on the maps because that's the sort of thing that makes it onto a map in the wild west. I understand the problems with the GNIS database, but am mostly concerned about the false identification of subdivisions as notable and much less concerned about rural places, so I also see no reason not to add a sentence and leave this article be. [9] [10] [11] SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at a lot of old topo maps in AZ and elsewhere now, they put everything on them, including people's generic ranches, farms, "places" for a building, and grain elevators: look at how many are marked on just this one! All of which (like Lenzie Ranch) dutifully logged into the GNIS, though in WA correctly as locales. Something that merely happened in the past isn't "historic", which would be "well-known or important"; one of hundreds of "Legal advertisements" listing every deed transaction in the newspaper isn't either of those or notability-contributing. It's funny how newspapers back in those days listed all the random comings-and-goings of whoever, since Yuma only had 2,000-some residents: the same column with Nommel in [12] informs us that "F.F. Nelson was down from Palo-verde to purchase supplies last week" and "'Gene Ingram has returned from the coast, where he spent two weeks." Reywas92^Talk 00:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per above. Although Wikipedia is not a directory, I would support keeping places on old topo maps that are worthy of mention in an online encyclopedia. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If this place wasn't "worthy of mention" literally anywhere except a deed transaction and an overly detailed map ("This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject."), why would it be worthy of mention in its own article here? We have standards, which includes significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it exists, but there's no there there. According to this list, there's at least one person permanently staying there. An advertorial here is not significant coverage. This map and this listing are not even wrong - they're for Washington state, not Arizona! Per WP:GEO, a redirect would be appropriate if we can find one: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." However, I can't figure out what would be an appropriate target article for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're for Washington, but it's the same type of topo map produced by the USGS showing that they attempt to be crazily comprehensive and that "Made it on the maps" (and by extension "made it in the GNIS") should not even be a starting point for determining notability since they'll mark any yahoo's ranch or homestead. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created (and deleted) separately. Sandstein 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midway, La Paz County, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of these stubs were created by a good faith editor. This one does not pass WP:GEO or WP:N. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arizona and Swansea Railroad where it is listed as a stop on a mining railroad built to serve one copper & gold mine. The railroad was abandoned in 1937. No indication this was ever a populated place or otherwise meets GNG. MB 04:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MB. This very good source lists Midway as a watering stop on the railroad, with a BLM landmark marking the site. I'll merge in some of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2020 (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) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bootlegger Crossing, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. There are scores of these mass-produced false permastubs, let's do a few bulk noms. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO and WP:GEOLAND. Reywas92 is correct about the need for bulk. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coords given are off a bit. This is the name of the place were Garland Prairie Road crosses the BNSF railroad tracks. See this. Definitely not a populated place; no other indication of notability for GNG. No obvious place for redirect. MB 00:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Covered here as a place of death, here as the site of a train accident, here as a site of a murder, here as a recent example of its use on the railroad, and [13] shows it's a place name in very recent use by the Forest Service. Probably doesn't need to be deleted, but it's more fun to be in an angry mob, so here we are. SportingFlyer T·C 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name is used to identify the spot where a road crosses the train tracks. No more unusual than millions of names of streets, buildings, etc. where things happen also yet those places don't meet GNG either. MB 14:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,The article dose not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Place, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. There's scores more of these, we can do a batch soon. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm actually just now noting how exceptionally disruptive all of these nominations are - these AfDs have been done only a couple minutes one right after the other and without any WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Some nominators research... and then list all at once. I did so before I nominated ten or so, and Reywas did so before a bulk nomination. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like there is a livestock corral there. Can't find anything else. Not a populated place, does not meet GNG. No obvious target for a redirect. MB 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in WP:RS. Bharatiya29 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found 21 Ghits, none of whcih are significant in any way. It seems to be totally deserted, not even a ghost town. If it must be kept, I strongly urge in that case to redirect it to nearby Williams, Arizona. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place in a county does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2020 (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 Faithful+Gould. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confluence Project Management[edit]

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

This article has no independent RS, and I am struggling to find one, but that might be because of all the articles about the Atlassian product. I can find directories and namechecks, but nothing else so far. It was written by user:ConfluencePM. Guy (help!) 21:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as long as more sourcing can be found.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Faithful+Gould: Of the article references, only the Q&A from The MP Report may rise above the routine, though it seems very advertorial, with appended company contact list, rather than in-depth journalistic evaluation. I am not seeing enough to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. The 2013 acquisition of the firm is mentioned on the Faithful+Gould page, which provides a reasonable redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babbit Winter, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a ranch. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's ranch land, 120 acres listed for sale in 2016 for $299,900. Not a populated place or otherwise notable. No target for redirect. MB 02:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 10 Ghits, nothing relevant or significant. It seems to be an empty ranch for sale, in the middle of nowhere. Nothing to redirect from or to another article. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note This got mis-spelled somewhere along the line. It is the winter ranch of the Babbitt family (two "T"s), mentioned here and here. The family and their other ranch(es) and trading company should pass WP:GNG (see [14], [15], [16], [17] etc), and an article on them would enable a redirect.----Pontificalibus 15:52, 16 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apex, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place; satellite view shows a railroad junction. –dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability.Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [18] Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, and this is or was an actual known place. I understand a need to go through these stubs, but this is getting ridiculous (and disruptive.) [19] [20] SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've got "The U.S. Forest Service deeded Arizona 815 acres of land alongside the Williams-Grand Canyon highway, between Tusayan and Apex, and two years ago Vercellino gave the go-ahead for construction" and "In 1928, he moved to Apex, on the Grand Canyon line of the Santa Fe Railroad, where he continued to log in the Tusayan-Skinner Ridge area until 1936". –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're setting a much higher standard for these than is needed. But it doesn't matter - it was a company town and passes WP:GEOLAND, which is exactly why this bulk deletion concerns me. [21] SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apex, or more commonly "Apex siding" was a stop along the Grand Canyon Railway. Does not meet GNG as required under GEOLAND#2 for places that aren't legally recognized communities. I think this was the site of a water tank from the steam engine days. I would like to merge into the Grand Canyon Railway article, but there isn't much in this article and the railway doesn't have much to say about this period in it's history and it doesn't talk about these stops (there were others). MB 02:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator rationale. This does not meet our sng or gng. Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While neither of them appear to be accessible online, both the Journal of Arizona History link cited by SportingFlyer and this journal establish that the community is in fact a former logging company town, not just a railroad station. The accessibility of sources in this case actually demonstrates why confirmed populated places have practically always been judged to be notable in the past, regardless of how many sources can be dug up for an AfD - sources describing them are often not easily accessible online, but almost certainly exist for any place with a long-term permanent population. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A settlement with a railroad station.----Pontificalibus 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, as above, especially this - "Apex: A Vanished Arizona Logging Community". Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to have been a real town, and is a ghost town as of 2019. See this ghost towns listing, the Grand Canyon RR goes through it, and remains of a camp. There are lots of false hits for a ... ahem ... adult group that can be disregarded, but overall it seems to have been notable, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are probably more sources for this that are not easily accessible online Dartslilly (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Are we still on this???? Meets WP:GEOLAND.Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most places would have a history. Unless something of significance happened on it or there is something unique on it, listing a place with a short description of the history does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That completely goes against our long-established guidelines at WP:GEOLAND, which states all legally recognised populated places are suitable for the encyclopedia. SportingFlyer T·C 11:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a difference between suitable and notable. My concern here is turning Wiki into a directory. Where should we draw the line? PenulisHantu (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 08:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Lake Landing, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. BEFORE search did not return any evidence that this was ever a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a site on the Southwest Lumber Railroad where logs were loaded onto railcars. See here, not a community or other kind of populated place (except maybe a logging camp). Does not meet GNG as required under GEOLAND#2. Can't really merge this one because the railroad doesn't have an article, it is a red link in List of Arizona railroads. MB 03:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dlthewave, Reywas92 and MB. There's no evidence this was any more than a whistle stop station where loggers stacked pine trees onto a railroad car; no evidence exists this was permanently or even seasonally settled by humans. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Happy Jack, Arizona as that appears to be the nearby logging camp to which logs loaded at this place were sent ([22]).----Pontificalibus 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Happy Jack, Arizona per Pontificalibus Dartslilly (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allister Adel[edit]

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

This is an article on the INTERIM county attorney for a county in Arizona. All the references in the article, and everything outside it, cover her only in this capacity and seem to be routine. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interim holders of an office are less notable than regular holders of the same office, and county attorney's are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County attorneys are not inherently notable in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that they're much more notable than the norm for that level of prominence — such as either nationalizing coverage that expands far beyond just where it's merely expected to exist, or a depth of coverage that plainly goes deeper than the norm and contextualizes her importance. The sources here don't do that, however, but just redundantly (and locally) offer verification and reverification that she exists, which is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A county of over 4 million people, the fourth largest in the United states, and "[a]s Maricopa County is home to almost 60 percent of the state's population, it dominates Arizona's politics." The office prosecutes 35,000 felonies annually -- and unnumbered misdemeanors. Most county/district attorneys are NN, but this one passes my standards easily. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, arguably a WP:BLP1E fail as all of the coverage appears to be from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have qualifications to pass WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon reflection, her interim status does make her less notable than I otherwise might argue. Perhaps after the election she can pass WP:GNG, but that's highly speculative.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as coverage seems not to be about her. As concerns WP:POLITICIAN, however, given the position is a very local and appointed one, I don't even think anyone could possibly be considered inherently notable under the criteria. GNG she fails. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG, may be WP:TOOSOON Dartslilly (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't find anything notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bricksmart[edit]

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

This is an article on a high school robotics team that briefly appeared in a documentary that had no theatrical release. It doesn't pass the GNG. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would appear that this group has only received coverage is local sources. I attempted to find some more, but was only able to find additional local sources and social media posts. It does not appear to have ever garnered any notability outside of its community. Rorshacma (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have some minor local interest story-type coverage, but ultimately most of this article is based on primary and/or non-reliable sources, and WP:GNG does not appear to be satisfied. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Smith (American football)[edit]

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

This is a BLP on a collegiate football player that doesn't pass the standards of either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. All coverage is game reporting on games in which he played and is, therefore, WP:ROUTINE. There is no biographical coverage as such. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with extensive significant coverage, and arguably also passes prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH as some of the coverage (AP, ESPN, Yahoo Sports) is national in scope. Smith was the lead running back and return specialist for Michigan, an elite Power Five team, in 2010. He was also the first Michigan player to score rushing, passing and receiving touchdowns in the same game (and also the recipient of Jadeveon Clowney's famous decapitation hit in the 2013 Outback Bowl). He received abundant coverage focused on him, not just passing mentions in game coverage. Many such sources are already included in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is extensive, examples include: (1) "Still waiting ... Michigan running back Vincent Smith looks for shot at being top ball carrier", Associated Press, 9/21/11 (part 2 here) (also picked up nationally, see here); (2) "Life after The Hit: The amazing second act for Michigan's Vincent Smith", ESPN.com, 6/22/17; (3) "Michigan's Vincent Smith modestly continues his role as the team's toughest player", The Ann Arbor News, 8/17/12 (582 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (4) "Meet Vincent Smith, recipient of Jadeveon Clowney's famous hit and community activist", Yahoo Sports, 10/23/13; (5) "Five years later, UM's Smith can laugh about The Hit", The Detroit News, 1/1/18; (6) "Since famous collision, Smith and Clowney have had diverging paths", Toledo Blade, 12/29/18; (7) "Ex-UM player Vincent Smith cultivates support for Flint garden project, The Detroit News, 11/6/15; (8) "Devin Gardner recalls Jadeveon Clowney's brutal hit on Vincent Smith in the Outback Bowl", Mlive.com, 6/14/13; (9) "Pahokee High grads Vincent Smith, Martavious Odoms bring H.O.P.E. back to community with art, charity project", The Palm Beach Post, 4/26/13; (10) "Vincent Smith says during reddit Q&A he 'took one for the team' on Jadeveon Clowney hit", Mlive.com, 3/13/13; (11) "Smith tougher than looks", The Detroit News, 10/6/11 (559 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (12) "Junior RB Smith makes the most of limited playing time for Michigan", Detroit Free Press, 9/18/11; (13) "Smith moves into mix to be main RB", Detroit Free Press, 9/20/11; (14) "Smith a versatile back: Wolverine can rush, catch, pass, and return kicks", The Toledo Blade, 10/4/11; (15) "Smith completes rare TD triple play", Detroit Free Press, 10/2/11; (16) "The Hit that keeps on giving, Detroit Free Press, 3/8/13; (17) "Smith gets his chance to shine after watching from the sideline", The Michigan Daily, 10/21/09; (18) "Smith emerges as Michigan's third featured running back", The Michigan Daily, 9/20/11; (19) Five years later, The Hit lives on for Jadeveon Clowney, Vincent Smith, Houston Chronicle, 12/30/17; (20) "Cultivating community, one garden at a time", The Michigan Alumnus, Summer 2016; (21) "Michigan junior Vincent Smith enters lead running back debate", The Ann Arbor News, 9/17/11; (22) "Vincent Smith, Urban Gardener", My City Magazine, 4/4/16. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 has found quite a bit of information to show this WP:N Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as Nom due to coverage found by Cbl62 dated after 2012. All the coverage prior to 2012 is simply Smith being mentioned in game reports, which is ROUTINE; it doesn't matter if Smith is mentioned in 10,000 different articles in RS if those articles are simply ROUTINE coverage about his profession (in this case game reportage). But the post-2012 coverage are not game reports, are not routine, and are significant enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Wolfson5 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are so many trivial firsts. List of United States presidential firsts is also under siege. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the keep rationales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts p b p 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts. WP:NOTIINFO, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOR WP:SYNTH. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The uncited parts could certainly be removed, but deleting the entire list is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Orser67 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I expect there will be more sources added to the article. Bharatiya29 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sourcing is not the issue. Presidential candidates receive so much media coverage that all sorts of minutia are reported. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just learned that in 1872 there was the first woman to run for president. Interesting. Anyway, quite encyclopedic, just like discussed in the similar article up for deletion now, no sense everyone repeating their arguments from there. Dream Focus 20:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Needs more sources, but helpful, informative, and notable page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN informational list - can be easily sourced with RSs Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (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 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Lu's Dumpling House[edit]

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

Unremarkable restaurant. No significant coverage other than restaurant reviews in local media. Zanhe (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRODUCTREV and WP:AUD (and as article creator, sure). Mama Lu's Dumpling House#References has multiple, independent, significant, and reliable reviews from at least one regional...source...unless the greater LA area, Southern California, the San Gabriel Valley are not regions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Certainly a good number of reviews that meet WP:PRODUCTREV, and seems well written about. The part I'm not so sure about is WP:AUD...I'd like to see better non-local coverage. Also, for as many sources as there is, the article is still just a stub. That signals to me that some of those sources are maybe not so high quality, or that they have useful content that should be added to the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I write regularly about restaurants and this restaurant passes "my test" for WP:BASIC WP:PRODUCTREV, etc.. References include - note, they have TWO locations:

"Monterey Park Chinese restaurant obtained namesake dumplings from unapproved source and other health inspections in the San Gabriel Valley" from Pasadena Star-News
"Chinese food and dumplings for every taste at Mama’s in San Gabriel" from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
"Fire Engine Slams Into and Destroys Lu Dumpling House" from Eater
"Seven Foods To Celebrate The Chinese New Year And Where To Get Them In L.A." from Southern California Public Radio
an article about where to eat in the San Gabriel Valley from The Los Angeles Times (I've met my free access for the month and I'm too lazy to find it in newspapers.com right now)
"The 8 Best Soup Dumpling Shops In Los Angeles" from Southern California Public Radio
"Where To Find LA's Best Chinese Soup Dumplings" from Eater
"Fire truck crash victim to get $15M settlement from Alhambra, Monterey Park" from Pasadena Star-News
"Mama Lu's Dumpling House works overtime to meet Lunar New Year demand" from KPCC
"Mama Lu Dumpling House in Monterey Park worth the wait" from San Gabriel Valley Tribune
"Home style specialties shine at Mama Lu’s Dumpling House" from Tiger
"TAKE A BAO: XIAO LONG BAO AT MAMA'S LU" from LA Weekly

I'll drop these on the talk page of the article. Missvain (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2020 (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. Article was deleted through CSD for COPYVIO. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study[edit]

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

Non-notable research study (or component thereof). Only substantive editor has COI (declared). The content appears to match that of https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/4679?q=toledo&archive=DSDR but it's possible that (due to the connection of the contributor) it is allowed by their employer/license-holder. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – We need explicitly stated permission from ICPSR Data Holdings, the publisher and copyright owner. Since this was from 2011, that is unlikely to materialize at this time. The editor claiming to work for the organization is not enough. OTRS has to be involved and the permission verified. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodemographic Models for Reproductive Aging Project (another page I nominated yesterday analogous to this one). Looking more, the others created User:DSDR tech seem to be comparable. Should I file a new nom for them, or add them here (and merge that other one here also?), or do you want to tag them for speedy? DMacks (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, the only thing that should stop you is if the material has be significantly edited since creation and then copied to other articles. Even then those infected articles would have to be cleaned for COPYVIO. I do not think that is likely to have happened in these two articles you mentioned. User:Diannaa is an expert on these things. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say WP:NUKE them all. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks I tag all but 2 of the articles created by the user for CSD. Here is what remains:

These two are not as clear cut of a COPYVIO but I think they should be deleted as well. You would have to nominate them separately. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way a description of a single study - missing the results, weirdly - is a notable or encyclopedic topic. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2020 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biodemographic Models for Reproductive Aging Project[edit]

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

Non-notable research project or dataset. Created by COI account (declared) with no sources other than its own organization. The content appears to match that of https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/4452?q=aging&archive=DSDR# but it's possible that (due to the connection of the contributor) it is allowed by their employer/license-holder. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable, and should be dynamited as there is nothing useful in the current article. It would need a total rewrite if it were to pass policy. It is currently just promotional nonsense that still strikes me as a copyvio. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way a description of a single study - missing the results, weirdly - is a notable or encyclopedic topic. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CD Projekt. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDengine[edit]

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

Video game engine used by one developer for its games. It has received coverage, but basically only in the context of the (relatively few) games for which it was used. It should be covered in the articles about these games, because all information about the different versions of the engine is specific to one particular game. Separate from the games this is not a notable topic. Sandstein 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no significant coverage and the article is just a version-on-version changelog. Lordtobi (✉) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CD Projekt. The engine name is a valid search term and we have enough to document it as tech developed by CD P Red. But what is merged just needs to be trimmed to the basics. --Masem (t) 18:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the two stances above. I do believe it’s worth retaining as a redirect though, since it is a viable search term. It is a thing mentioned in sources, but there’s not enough sourcing or content to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because not a random game engine but a notable one with many coverage and used in popular games. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of significant coverage of the subject from reliable, third party sources? Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CD Projekt. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CD Projekt per everyone else._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CD Projekt per above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:41, 18 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the Beginning (artwork)[edit]

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

non-notable artwork. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence whatsoever of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, before dismissing it wholesale, it might be worth looking a bit closer at the publisher, it:Giorgio Mondadori, and the author it:Paolo Levi of one of the sources, who both seem reputable. (I don't have access to the source, only two libraries hold it) But even if that reference checks out, it is only one and this is a fairly blatant attempt at promoting an artist whose work has received very little critical attention. "pittostruttura" appears to be a neologism invented by Taccon. The Langhkawi International Festival of Arts seems to have evolved into the Lankawi Art Biennale, but I don't think it has anywhere near the importance of some of the more established biennals. Vexations (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I am always happy to consider that someone or an artwork might be notable, but I am not seeing anything good in this article or in a search. The Quadriennale de Roma source used in the article is a listing for a library archive, rather than a work held in a collection. It mentions papers, a catalogue, correspondence and a poster. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, It's a fairly obvious notability fail, but I do not wish to dismiss potentially legitimate sources without considering them carefully. Just doing due diligence. Vexations (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything that substantiates this as a notable work of art. Netherzone (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .NotButtigieg (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2020 (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 Temper Temper (Bullet for My Valentine album). Missvain (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.W (Bullet for My Valentine song)[edit]

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

Article tagged for notability issues for over 6 years and makes no claims of notability for this music track. Fails WP:NMUSIC. I suggest at best it should be redirected permanently to Temper Temper (Bullet for My Valentine album) Sionk (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no evidence of independent notability. Barely any content other than someone more or less paraphrasing the album liner notes relevant to the song. Only suggesting redirect over delete because it appears to have had a music video released for it, so it seems like it could be searched for, but I’m all for a “delete” too if that’s where we need to go for a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temper Temper per Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temper Temper in agreement with the discussion above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 14 January 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Merchants[edit]

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

The article doesn't indicate anything that would make the band notable per WP:NMUSIC. Looking at the sourcing in the article to see whether they would pass WP:GNG, I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The 'Colorado New Wave/Punk Rock' article gives them a couple of passing mentions (and I'm not sure about its reliability); the Midheaven site is selling their record (not independent); The 'Exclaim! Exclaim' review is significant coverage, but I'm doubtful as to its reliability - I can't find an 'About' section on the website, but it looks like it's written by contributors so likely a WP:UGC review; Discogs and Allmusic are directory listings with no significant content; the Smooch Records site is their record label - not independent. I looked for better sourcing, but didn't find anything better - just more UGC reviews and the like. (Watch out when searching for sourcing - there is at least one other band with this name). So, this doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Exclaim! source is fine, and I found a review in The Marquee ([23]). There's likely to be coverage from the 80s that won't be online. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you, Michig. I remember there were other reputable sources that mentioned this group more than 10 years ago, however, it seems like those webpages/websites don't exist anymore. Also I agree, there were probably more coverage about this band from the 1980s that haven't been mentioned online as well. I've also added sources such as the Daily Camera newspaper and Westword online newspaper into this article. Ninmacer20 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michig Would you mind expanding on why the Exlaim! source is fine? I'm not familiar with it, so could be speaking out of turn here, but their website says that they accept contributions from the public ('Get Published'), and I'm not seeing the author of that review on their staff list - that's why I was suspicious that this was WP:UGC with uncertain editorial oversight - not the sort of thing we should be using to establish notability. The Marquee review you found is three sentences long - can we really call that in-depth treatment? The Daily Camera piece gives even less coverage - a passing mention in a single sentence. The Westword one looks like the best of the bunch actually - that's a decent length, and written by someone who appears to be a staff writer, but on its own it doesn't establish notability, and I'd still lean towards delete unless you can set me straight on the Exclaim ref. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim! is specifically included as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It may be willing to take on new contributors (as is true with most online magazines), but as long as there's editorial oversight there's no problem. --Michig (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, hmm - interesting. I see that it was added to that list after a discussion with a single participant, who added it to the list when nobody responded. I've always considered sites like that to be in the same category as Forbes contributors, as described at WP:RSP, but perhaps I'm out of step. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim! is a printed magazine based in Canada and distributed worldwide, its in my local shop in Scotland, it obviously has an editorial team and has a good reputation for music subjects. The website is an extension of the magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, can't we say the same for Forbes though? Printed magazine, reliable source for staff-written content, but they also have a website that accepts stuff written by just about anyone, with minimal editorial oversight. We do not accept articles by Forbes contributors as RS, or as establishing notability - is this site any different? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is evidence they've printed anything unreliable we can't criticise their editorial oversight, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per this thread on RSN, it seems that the community is not urgently concerned about the use of Exclaim! as a source, and so on the strength of that review, and the Westword one, this band probably makes it through GNG, and so I am happy to withdraw the nomination, with apologies to Ninmacer20. I'd close this myself, but haven't gotten around to learning how to use those buttons yet. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Teen Titans. Missvain (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Frankenstein (character)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teen Titans which was first appearance Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lightburst. To be honest, at first I thought this article was about the Gene Wilder Young Frankenstein, so if kept I think the disambig needs to be changed to "Young Frankenstein" (superhero character)". Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's pronounced Frankensteen. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete/Redirect - There are virtually no non-primary sources regarding the character. That, along with the fact that the character was extremely minor, making only a small handful appearances, makes merging to the main Teen Titans article inappropriate. If anything, it could be, instead, redirected to List of Teen Titans members, where he is already covered, but if that is to be done, I agree with CaptainEek that it should probably be re-named. Rorshacma (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dold[edit]

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

WP:ARTIST fail. Now and then I think it is important to enforce the higher standard of WP:ARTIST, as if we accept this artist is notable we are going to have thousands of articles on people who do good drawings with coloured pencils. This particular artist has has some minor success, but it is nothing to write home about as they say. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't qualify for WP:ARTIST either. Lunar Clock (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for notability but found none. fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references don't even check out. There's really nothing we could write at all. Vexations (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST, WP:MILL, WP:V, and WP:GNG. No art in collections of major art museums or galleries. Not working and exhibiting in an "art capital". Very minor awards. Totally run of the mill. Had done nothing notable otherwise. Searches reveal different persons with similar names - one a business person c. 1880 and an orthopedist. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has four citations of failed verifications, making the article's claims suspect.TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2020 (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 Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert. Tone 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Ontario nuclear incident alert[edit]

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

This is a false alarm , nobody died, not a major event. It just happened WP:NOTNEWS. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I think it is not reasonable to make a deletion decision yet (the event happened less than four hours ago). In general, it seems that large-scale false alarms have precedent to be notable (see 2005 Connecticut false evacuation alert, 2018 Hawaii false missile alert, &c.) There seems to already be significant political fallout, so I think this is an article worth keeping unless things change. Oeoi (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with Delete (and redirect). If there remains sustained media coverage, we could split it away if necessary. Oeoi (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this incident has no clear established notability warranting its own page yet. If it reaches that point then a new page can easily be created, but because this is already being covered under the Incidents section of the plant’s page and there’s insufficient material to justify its own page yet, that’s the best way to handle for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlikely to have a lasting effect and you can't subscribe to Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment as political response is taking place... then either keep altogether or redirect to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station#2020 nuclear incident alert. As mentioned above, "large-scale false alarms have precedent to be notable (see 2005 Connecticut false evacuation alert, 2018 Hawaii false missile alert, &c.)" Spyder212 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is getting notability backwards, though. Sure, this event has the potential to become notable and warrant its own page in the future, but this AfD is over whether it’s notable now. If it’s not notable enough to have its own page now, this should be deleted. If notability is established later, then it would be appropriate to re-create a standalone article at that time (potentially using content off the Pickering Station page, if it continues to be updated about this incident). That is how notability works. If your argument is that maybe it could become notable later, that is a sign you agree the page meets the policy criteria for deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Or draftify, if we're feeling generous, on the off chance that this generates sustained coverage. But I highly doubt this is going to have a lasting impact. I live in Ontario and people have mostly forgotten about it a few hours later. The Hawaii and Connecticut false alarms caused panic because they stated that there was imminent danger and urged residents to evacuate. In this case the emergency alert stated There has been no abnormal release of radioactivity from the station... People DO NOT need to take any protective actions at this time. People turned it off, went back to sleep and maybe made a joke about it on Twitter. Not a notable event. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Premature to delete, has citations to reliable sources. Notability is not about being "notable", it is about there existing reliable citable sources. The topic can be subsequently incorporated into an article on the facility if nothing further comes of the event.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. This did happen, and is obviously notable enough to warrant mention somewhere in Wikipedia — but it doesn't clear the high bar needed to warrant its own standalone article separately from being discussed in the article on Pickering itself. Apart from possibly an internal adjustment of the emergency alert procedures to reduce the likelihood of a repeat occurence, this is not going to have any enduring long-term effects for the purposes of needing its own dedicated article. If the existence of sources automatically exempted a topic from having to have a reason why an encyclopedia article was warranted, we would have to keep an article about every house fire that ever happened. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, words at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station is enough, of concern are some of the above words - "the event happened less than four hours ago", exactly why the article shouldn't have been created, and "Premature to delete", no, this was premature to create. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How on earth is this notable? It was just a test! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2020 (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) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Donovan[edit]

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

Giving evidence in a trial is poor gruel for a blp. Needs much better sourcing than this Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since whatever claim to notability the subject possesses, in terms of Wikipedia or even of real life, is based on only a run-of-the-mill career in porn, for which she had a few interviews published. Her career by itself is not enough for a Wikipedia article after the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. Subject fails WP:GNG. And the attempt to enlist a certain, rather uneventful trial fails on account of, if nothing else, WP:1E. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did my best to clean up the article, which was rather fanboy-ish, and add as many citations as possible, however, it's slim pickings. I've had my morning fill of weeding through 1980s porn adverts in newspapers... While it doesn't really matter when making this decision, she left the industry, has been involved in programs to get people to end their porn addictions, and is anti-porn, so we'd probably be doing her a favor.... Missvain (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not keep porn stars anymore unless we have SIGCOV for a bio. As an aside, here is someone famous for testifying at a trial. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is exactly the kind of stuff that deprecating WP:PORNBIO has allowed us to get rid of. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article that needs to be scrapped. I look forward to the day when we finally have less than 300 articles in the American pornographic actresses category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midori (actress)[edit]

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

Sources offered fail gng and lack necessary depth and independence to support a blp Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NSINGER and even WP:GNG. No chart history, as far as one can see, and not much of an impression on music. Her sister is justly famous (and Wikinotable) but that doesn't amount to much. One could invoke WP:PORNBIO and keep it, but one better not. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I revamped her article. I encourage folks to take a look at it as of now. Missvain (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per proper BEFORE done by Missvain. You know you can vote right? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know, I just wanted to gauge others thoughts before. I have decided to focus on women pornographic-focused bios for a while, and I'm still getting my feelers out there regarding the subject. I'm so excited that the guidelines for WP:PORN have been deprecated. I didn't even know that was happening last Spring and I just think it's way better, and way more supportive, of women in the industry - and those who want, perhaps, disappear into obscurity. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not ignore here the fact that, whether or not the biography of a living person stays up is typically not decided by that person, especially if that person is widely known. (The related policies can be found in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:BIODELETE, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.) And there is always the resort of subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page to apply to have the material removed. (See WP:BIOSELF.) Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I rewrote Midori's article. Sourcing is very interesting sometimes for pornographic actors, not always your typical mainstream coverage. While a few sources are interviews, I do think her historical significant is valuable in porn, women's history, and black history. Also she's consistent with her stories in multiple interviews, when I use oral history (and I do regularly, including when I was Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian) that is something I look for - consistency. Oral history is invaluable in subjects where mainstream media might not be covering the subject. Also see WP:BASIC regarding the plethora of reliable secondary sources that we combined to create a substantial piece about her. Anyway, I hope Midori is kept! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere congratulations on your work on oral history, as you testify above, Missvain. Two points, if I may: One, women's history and African-American (black) history, as you know, contain the stories/biographies of myriads of persons, as well as the transcripts of the many oral testimonies that have been saved. Wikipedia has a special focus on education, as we know, but oral history in thw context of Wikipedia cannot but be treated as every other source, i.e. on the basis of verifiability. For this purpose, interviews are useful in Wikipedia to support an event or something else of note - but as far the person's own Wikinotability is concerned, which typically translates to inclusion of an article about them, an interview is of little use. (See note c in WP:PRIMARY.) We cannot be the ones who establish our own notibility in Wikipedia!

And, two, the fact that Midori is "consistent," as you put it, across her interviews amounts to very little, as far as, again, Wikinotability is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially abstained because I was on the fence given the article in the state it was nominated in, but Missvain's rewrite gets it over the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources forensics:

-Repeated citations of an offline advertorial in the Black Video Illustrated porn video guide.

-Interviews such as this or this on blogs and "adult" websites (where every porn performer who can be reached is interviewed),

-Interviews of her sister, Jody Watley, such as this on Ebony, in which our subject is name dropped.

-Author David Foster Wallace visited the 2005 AVN event for his short story "Big Red Son" (which later appeared in the collection Consider the Lobster) and mentions there that our subject got a porn award.

-A list from a website of "top" African American porn stars (where our subject ranks 11th)

-A quite respectable British newspaper, The Guardian, is summoned to give evidence but all we get is a mention in its TV listings of the documentary Glamour Girlz about "black girls in porn", in which Midori is briefly mentioned & shown.

-After the Guardian we get the New York Daily News where a small article appeared in 1997 about "Jody's sister doing porn" and how both girls' careers are "on the rise."

-Hopes for a serious citation are rekindled with the link to the Los Angeles Times but the report is actually a movie review, and specifically about an "entertaining documentary on three exotic dancers," among whom is "Michele Watley."

-The "sex & music" magazine Blender contains an article that describes Midori's claim to fame rather accurately: "Eagle-eyed fans can spot Midori among a trio of half-naked girls pleasuring Andrew Dice Clay on the cover of the Dice Man's 2000 album."

-National Post had a 1999 article about our subject, adorned with an eye-candy photo, focusing on the porn-to-music angle. (The newspaper did not show any subsequent interest whatsoever. Neither did the other non-porn sources.)

-In the very lengthy Spin article "The 100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock", we encounter Midori in "moment #44", which is about Kid Rock's "ode to fellatio". We learn incidentally that Kid Rock also "dated and then dumped" our subject. And there's yet another Spin piece dedicated to Kid Rock, where the inevitable (name drop of our subject) happens again.

-Mentions in routine listings, such as this, of music concerts.

-CMJ New Music Monthly ran a piece in 1999 about the fad of rock bands getting porn stars in their videos "to portray that old rock and roll image". Our subject is mentioned among them.

-The rest of the references are porn awards, listings, and write ups. But we have already and firmly established that our subject existed and worked for a time in the porn sector. (She probably would have failed WP:PORNBIO too, were it still in place.)

In sum: What we have here, in all honesty, is a person who did not make any notable waves as a porn performer and then made a very little noticed attempt at a career in singing. The latter would have gone entirely unnoticed were it not for two facts: (a) she was previously in porn, and (b) she has a famous sister. The large quantity hides a dearth of quality. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion by Missvain and WP:BASIC where coverage can be combined to demonstrate notability, especially with the National Post article, Blender, and the documentaries, The Unveiling and Glamour Girlz, themselves. Oh and this source has more coverage about that documentary than the Guardian.[24] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above new reference is, once again, not about our subject at all but about the documentary Glamour Girlz, which, as already stated, also contains footage of her. And merely asserting that some sources are worthy will not do. No matter how many nothings we may "combine" or add up we still get nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the documentaries themselves are sources about the subject.[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts In all my 14 years of editing I never ever have looked at WP:BASIC until now. Thank you for mentioning it! I guess I've always seen it in passing but never clicked - this is very helpful and surely helps make the case for keeping this article! Missvain (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It pays to revisit WP:BASIC when we talk about "multiple references" and particulary about "combining" them. That guideline is quite clear: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, i.e. no matter what one tries in combinatorics. I demonstrated above that all the sources cited are far from "substantial" and are actually (possibly lower than) "trivial." But enough is enough. -The Gnome (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have once more expanded and cited the article. I know this won't satisfy The Gnome, but I am just letting other editors and reviewers know. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my duty and said my piece. That's all one can do. -The Gnome (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read both Gnome and Morbidthoughts evaluation of the sources and find the latter more persuasive. Props to Missvain for rescuing this article. If I'd ever encountered this article before her rescue work, I would have been a slam-dunk delete !voter. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words David in DC - excited to report the article is now rated as a B level article! Missvain (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should have more people do what Missvain has done here. Trackinfo (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's excellent additions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC based on sources such as [26][27][28][29]. This is a great example of WP:HEYMAN by Missvain TJMSmith (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found, meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (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) 17:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna O'Brien[edit]

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

Fails bio blp sourcing requirements and the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - I spent considerable time trying to find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly and failed miserably. The two best pieces I found are from two fairly, non-mainstream websites. She is mentioned a few times in books about B-Movies and celeb gossip columns about when she dated Charlie Sheen. I'm not finding how she passes GNG. Maybe someone will have better luck... Missvain (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed therichest.com as a source and trimmed back the use of iafd.com and adultfilmdatabase.com, all unreliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:GNG, after failing WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. Her best shot at notability seems to have been "dating Charlie Sheen". -The Gnome (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. 5 of the 8 references are about Inkas business unit. Fails WP:BIO. Previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Maksumov under a slightly different name. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable Business magnate, he has also received significant honor's from the like's of UAE Ambassador of Russian "Efimov Alexander" and His Highness Sheikh Zayed Bin Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum. He is recognized for his contribution to the armored field in Dubai; which eventually means he meets WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 and 2. He has also been published on reliable sources both in English and Russian, and here are few reliable sources independent of the subject bellow.

English	Russian
[30] The Punch	[31] Sputnik
[32] Defence	[33] Kabar
[34] Vanguard News	[35] Russian Emirates
[36] TheNewsGuru	-

The previously deleted article fails WP:BIO, but presently he meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG criteria for notability. --Qamar645 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't pass ANYBIO by a long shot. He is a businessman with a business trying to promote it on here and you are the promoter. scope_creep^Talk 23:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @scope_creep, I understand what Wikipedia is not and what it is. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise business personalities, but an online encyclopedia. So I don't understand why I would come here to promote an article which clearly meets the criteria and written on WP:NPOV as wikipedia articles should be addressed not like the Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov which is written as WP:PROMOTION which I believe is the reason for the first AfD made on the subject.

Honestly, I don't know what we are looking at to establish notability again, even after meeting WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criteria.

Like you said "He is a businessman with a business trying to promote it on here", why on earth would United Arab Emirates business magnate choose Wikipedia as a place to promote his business when we have social media or news media to promote his business. Also if you have done your research according to the media INKAS Vehicles revenue is 300 USD yearly even bigger than what INKAS last recorded. If you also look closely on the media, INKAS has been calling out for help from other countries to help shut down INKAS Vehicles which is founded by Ulugbekhon Maksumov, an working in connection with United Nation and I don't see him passing WP:ANYBIO as a long shot in anyway, it clear he passes the criteria. I understand as an editor/admin we might go on and on, and might never come to a conclusion. Also, he's verified on Instagram with over 1.9M followers and his company is verified with 334k followers, which is almost half a million. I know I shouldn't be pointing at this direction about a significant cult following but because I want to prove a point, INKAS himself is not verified with half of the number of followers they got and they the only verified INKAS company. --Qamar645 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the supposedly large number of followers it doesn't make him notable. There must be some coverage that satisfies WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the article cites a number of sources, the subject himself does not seem have accrued sufficient in-depth coverage in said sources and as such fails WP:NBIO. For example, many of the sources mention the subject (in his function as a businessman) but are ultimately concerned with other topics, an issue given that notability is not inherited. Once you separate Maksumov from the notable companies he is affiliated with, there is not much left to establish notability, and that little is almost all WP:PRIMARY (such as interviews or brief comments). SamHolt6 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with SamHolt6. There is no in-depth coverage of the person. Not clear what exactly he did to be notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His company might possibly be notable, but there is no indication that he is, independently of the company. . The article. is clearly promotional -- and the combination fo promotionalism and dubious or borderline notability is an excellent reason for deletion. If anything , the promotionalism is more important--we do not accept promotional articles no matter how notable the subject. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Jackson[edit]

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

PROD removed by an IP without explanation. The subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. A Google search only turns up basic stats and coverage from Jackson's college, such as this and this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per sources above. - Bosanac66 (talk) - 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Per sources presented above. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skilling (online trading company)[edit]

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

Non-notable trading business. Was G11, then SPA came in and removed. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above criteria (appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, and WP:ORGCRIT); also appearance of WP:SPAM, while lack of sufficient reliable sources would prevent improving commercial nature of article tone. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a Cyprus-based trading platform proposition. Notability is not inherited from previous jobs held by individuals associated with the company and the references are basically press releases and primary sponsorship announcements. Nothing better found in searches on this or previous name (Finovel Cyprus); fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayantan Basu[edit]

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

Losing candidate in election. Fails WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some sources such as Scroll.in and Business Standards. It passes second clause of WP:POLITICIAN. Lunar Clock (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding office, not just running for it. Rather, to get an article, Sayantan Basu would have to pass one of two other tests: either (a) he can be demonstrated and reliably sourced as having already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (as e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that plainly marks his candidacy out as much more special than other people's candidacies for some reason that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. The existence of a small handful of routine campaign coverage does not accomplish that in and of itself, because every candidate in every election can always show a small handful of routine campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and Bearcat. Tell me if you can figure out what this person has done that's notable. Reading between the broken English, it appears he's a run of the mill local party official and activist. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sayantan Basu is the General Secretary of the State of West Bengal of the largest political party in India. According to the news link, Basu is notable enough. Pinakpani (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"General Secretary of the State of X of Y political party" is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sources. Doesn't matter whether it's the biggest party or the smallest party or the middlest party — it's never an "inherently" notable role at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Pinakpani (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the person has done something notable with his/her position, holding a title does not make him/her notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midway City (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deproded with an invalid argument (WP:ITSNOTABLE). So here we go again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rond Vidar[edit]

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deproded with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, one of literally tens of thousands of characters in the franchise. TTN (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Petanque Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:19, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Music[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. No appearances in any charts that I could find, nor is there SIGCOV about her. Would not satisfy any other notability criteria. PK650 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not deleted, needs to be at a better title, perhaps LJ (singer), and the entry at dab page LJ (to which I've just added her) needs to be updated. Would have moved the page, but it's not helpful to do so during an AfD. PamD 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article author

Hi PK650, I created this Wikipedia article for LJ Music. Please accept my apologies if there is something wrong with the page or I did not follow a specific Wikipedia rule or process. I've been an avid Wikipedia contributor for almost 10 years and have made hundreds of contributions and have created a bunch of pages for all types of people and organizations in the arts. I really hope this page does not get deleted because I feel it does warrant having its own page.

I read through your reasons for deleting her page. Thank you for taking the time to go through Wikipedia articles to ensure they are accurate and warranted! As a 10-year Wikipedia contributor, I strongly believe in ensuring Wikipedia is as accurate as possible :)

For your comments, are you suggesting that if a musician does not have an appearance in a chart that he or she should not be able to have a Wikipedia page? I don't necessarily agree with that requirement. I felt a Wikipedia article is justified for her for three key reasons.

First, LJ Music, from what I have found, is signed to a well-known record label/publishing company (RED Creative Group) that work with many reputable artists, which to me helps prove her reputation.

Second, from what I found, she has worked with, and appears to be currently working with, a bunch of well-known producers and songwriters who have been in the music industry a long time and have won many industry awards (such as Jeremy Stover, Paul DiGiovanni, Deana Carter, Monty Criswell, Kelly Archer, Sarah Buxton, and the Warren Brothers.)

And third, she has a bunch of credible third-party industry websites that have written about her, or mention her work, that satisfied Wikipedia's requirement to have verifiable sources. I felt these three reasons made her legit enough to have her own Wikipedia article, especially since she has songs that are live from those known individuals in the music industry. I don't think that just because she doesn't have a hit song that she should be disqualified for having a page?

Regarding PamD's comment, I can totally change the title. The only reason I chose "musician" rather than "singer" is because I have seen "musician" used in parenthesis all the time for musicians throughout my years contributing to Wikipedia. I was just trying to follow the same format and use the same verbiage I've seen other musicians used.

Do you agree with any of my reasonings? Would you feel more comfortable keeping the page if I found more information about her that increased her credibility? I understand anyone has the right to suggest a page for deletion on Wikipedia, but I was hoping my 10 years as a contributor, and the facts I've made hundreds of contributions over the years would help prove my credibility. During my daily browsing of the world wide web, when I come across an artist, musician, or other kind of enthusiast, if I see enough about that person, I try to create or contribute to a Wikipedia page. So that's why I decided to create hers, after seeing all the information about being signed, published, working with award winning songwriters and producers, and seeing so many third-party websites mentioning her and her music career.

Happy to talk more. And thank you again for bringing this to my attention! Hoping this page can stay. Salvatore42 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvatore42: Please look at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC which were mentioned, but unfortunately not linked, in the nomination. Then make sure that the article has sources which satisfy the requirements of one of these, and make a "Keep" argument on this page pointing out how LJ satisfies those criteria. Thanks. PamD 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could I please have you clarify the following: "I created this Wikipedia article for LJ Music"? Do you mean to say you were working for/with LJ Music? PK650 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator and Sambhil32 that the sources provided do not adequately satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 15 January 2020 (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. RL0919 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellier (documentary series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AFD was closed for procedural reasons, but it isn't any more notable now than it was previously. The main "sources" that were identified in the previous review are Richmond Register and Vice, which both are derived from press releases without significant original content, and these two obscure non-RS websites which have reviewed it. Does not meet WP:NFILM, WP:GNG, or anything else. The content is based on junk sources and needs to be scrapped. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the last discussion:

Extended content
((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellier (documentary series)))

TheMemeMonarch (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry, but why was the 1st afd closed early ie. which point of WP:SKCRIT? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolabahapple, Because I said Merge when I meant Redirect. If nominator argues for merge than it can be procedurally closed, as it was. b uidhe 07:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Coolabahapple, but what Buidhe said is not confirmed. If MJL could comment, that would clear up any misunderstands as to why the first AFD discussion was closed.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMemeMonarch: Thank you for the ping. I closed the last AFD for procedural reasons as was mentioned. The logic behind it was Buidhe suggested it be merged with another article, and AFD is generally not supposed to be used to suggest mergers (see WP:MERGE). When that happens, generally the result is either keep or merge per speedy keep (example).
Theoretically, SKCRIT applies to suggestions that a page be redirected as well, but I will leave that to another potential closer.
Either way, to answer Coolabahapple's question, the logic behind WP:SKCRIT is to prevent AFD from having discussions where everyone agrees the content should be kept. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As just a commentator, I don't see how the Vice and Richmond Register sources are at all based from Press Releases. They seem pretty significant to me, and both give every indication that they're original reporting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the richmond and vice articles are merely based on press releases. Also here is another article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are lots of reviews and articles, plus this show is connected to the streaming giant Prime Video. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (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 George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The delete/redirect camp has made valid arguments that notability criteria are not satisfied and that we can't prognosticate on notability, while the keep camp hasn't really cited any evidence of notability beyond a deprecated source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party of Britain[edit]

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

This political party does not meet notability requirements. No organisation is inherently notable, including political parties. No organisation inherits notability from associated people, so the notability of George Galloway does not grant any notability to the party.

The current referencing includes primary sources and a blog source that do not contribute to notability. The only secondary source is a local newspaper article which I don't think counts as significant coverage. More than half of the article is text copied from the party's own website. It's a routine announcement that counts as dependent coverage. This article does not meet WP:NORG. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here is an article in the Daily Mail. The organization was founded less than a month ago and has already made headlines in major UK media outlets.--TM 01:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Click. ミラ P 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—for the GNG and WP:NORG, coverage has to come from reliable sources amongst the other criteria. The Daily Mail explicitly fails that requirement. Ralbegen (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon to decide. If it turns out to be just a front for Galloway it can be merged into his article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19). The party lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In the absence of those sources there's no basis to write an encyclopaedia article rather than a summary of a few news stories. Nonetheless, it's plausible that a better claim for notability might be made in the coming months or years, and it's not unreasonable to expect that some people will be looking for information about it on Wikipedia. As such, preserving the search term and the history is likely to be useful. (I don't think, however, that much if anything needs to be merged – the two sentences in the Galloway article are sufficient for now.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That could work! Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The suggested redirect to George Galloway#Other developments (2015–19) is sensible as GNG is not there yet, however, these situations can change quickly as we saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brexit Party. There is enough RS to confirm the existence of this organisation (e.g. the Daily Mail, while not a WP-RS, it one of the most widely read papers in Britain), and thus it will probably always be a valid ReDirect to George Galloway. As to whether it becomes a fully notable party for a standalone WP article, we will see.... Britishfinance (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be as notable as Association of Communist Workers and most of the other stalinist organisations which have articles. It's certainly organising events, which, given Galloway's notoriety and his interest in Iran, will attract some mainstream coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an organisation will get coverage in the future doesn't confer notability. Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think its an important article, and George Galloway is a huge public figure. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 12 January 2020 (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 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Buck (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rebecca Buck (journalist)

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

Jouranlists are not default notable. The sources are all either about her dad, routine society coverage, employer job changes postings, or PR postings, none are substantial, indepdent 3rd party coverage about her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time I don’t see a demonstration of notability for an article. ⌚️ (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find much written about her.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has the title of lead reporter for a cable news network, was named a scholar by her alma mater, and has worked for The New Yorker magazine The New York Times newspaper and CNN network - some of the largest media outlets in the country, thus the subject does not appear to an unnotable journalist as stated above. The article has been improved upon and a couple more sources were added (I counted 3 sources about her family out of 11 total sources, not all about her father or "society coverage"). Subject meets WP:BIO, WP:GNG and passes WP:JOURNALIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources added by AuthorAuthor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Other than the name mentions in event announcements in publications (obit, wedding party, etc. for references 1, 2, 3, 4). Others are primary sources (references 6, 8, 9, 10). References 5 and 7 are duplicated leading to the same passing mention. Ergo, subject lacks significant secondary source coverage. Lorelai1335 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Pringle[edit]

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

The boy is popularized for just one single event, for calling out Bear grylls, that happened in 2018, more than a year ago. There is nothing enough to pass GNG that happened after that. Daiyusha (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 10:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 10:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely to remain a WP:LPI so not notable as per WP:BLP1E. WP:GNG doesn't ask for being well-known for more than one event, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald is only known for JFK's assasination. This article has significant coverage: multiple articles about him in detail. The articles also discuss things other than him calling out Bear Grylls, e.g. he was one of the first Britons to go on a climate strike and he was named young campaigner of the year^[1]. It also uses reliable sources: it refers to published articles, and WP:GNG also says the existence of secondary sources is a good test for notability - the sources do exist, so the article passes WP:GNG. BobEret (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BobEret (talk · contribs) a bunch of schoolkids are protesting, he's not the only one. For a country like UK, i doubt that someone protesting against climate change in 2018 is considered one of the first. any major source wrote about him is only because of him commenting on bear grylls, or else he wouldn't be written about. I still believe this should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E Daiyusha (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daiyusha (talk · contribs) Actually, you're right, I agree he is likely to remain a WP:LPI. I have adjusted my vote accordingly.

Delete we need really good coverage to justify an article on a 12-year-old, and we do not in any way have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "'You have a voice': Meet Finlay Pringle, 12, who is our answer to Greta Thunberg". inews.co.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2020.

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

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

The result was merge to Copterline Oy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copterline[edit]

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

This article seems to be a duplicate of Copterline Oy. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is quite confusing, but apparently this article was split by @Vuo: in 2012 because the Finnish company "Copterline Oy" went bankrupt but an Estonian company "Copterline OÜ" continued with the trademark. The Estonian company went bankrupt in 2016 as well. But given that both companies are now bankrupt, they used the same trademark and the histories are intertwined anyway, it should be merged. But care needs to be taken to take this history into account.--Pudeo (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge AfD is the wrong tool for this. Merge content from Copterline Oy to Copterline, not vice versa as suggested. Copterline Oy can be left as a redirect to Copterline. This is because Copterline OÜ effectively continued the history of Copterline Oy by serving as a vehicle for Line Support Oy, even if the formal legal identities do not coincide. --vuo (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Taccon[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources in any language with significant coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG, and nothing suggests that the subject satisfies any of the WP:ARTIST criteria: only one of his works is hosted by a notable museum, i.e. none are a substantial part of a significant exhibition or represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (italicization is mine), and thing that would possibly fall under a significant new concept, theory, or technique is a manifesto of his art movement posted on a blog. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without commenting on notability, I noticed that there has been a bit of a campaign by SPAs Special:Contributions/B.a.c.i.4. and Special:Contributions/Trilly20 starting in 2008. The notability concerns have been reaised earlier but were fought by the SPAs. It looks a lot like autobiographical promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the related page At the Beginning (artwork) for deletion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excluding the unknowns of the References section, I'm only seeing one potential reliable source, the book authored by Paolo Levi et al. Otherwise, there's just an extensively cited press release, and self-published materials. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find any significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything that substantiates notability. If I'm not mistaken, the collections are catalogs in libraries, not works held in collections of major museums. The article seems like a promo piece. But if sigcov in reliable sources turn up, I might be persuaded. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)[edit]

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

WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PLOTty article on a fictional organisation, sourced to WP:PRIMARY. A summary is already present in Buffyverse#Watchers, and there is no need for a WP:SPINOUT in such a state. Redirect or delete? – sgeureka ^t•c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This concept/term is an integral part of the series and is discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. The article as it stands now depends too heavily on primary sources and should be expanded with secondary sources, but that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Scholar search reveals (unsurprisingly) plenty of scholarly analysis. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two keep !votes above do not address my nom rationale why Buffyverse#Watchers can't cover this subject just fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are enough sources out there to justify it having its own article. — Hunter Kahn 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very important concept of Buffy the vampire slayer. It also makes the series the feministic series that it is in the way that it shows Buffy's resistance to the organization (which is like a metaphor for oppressing women in a patriarchal society). It makes the series what is and definitely deserves its own page. I will be adding some things about that shortly to the page, but well I am not a natural English speaker. So I might make mistakes, if anyone is able to correct them it would be very nice. Thanks in advance. --Dynara23 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an extensive body of criticism and analysis of the "Buffyverse", ranging from the fannish to the heavy-duty academic, and there's not even a pretense here of attempting to review any relevant material. It's a bit disturbing to see an admin disregarding the central element of deletion policy that the quality of an article in no way determines the notability of its subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG policy. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2020 (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 consensus that we should not have this article. Whether and where to redirect this list or individual orcs to is something that can be sorted out at the editorial level. Sandstein 07:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth Orc characters[edit]

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

We have several different lists of Middle-earth characters. As reflected by the AfD for List of Middle-earth Elves, there seems to be a consensus to delete auxiliary lists like this in favor of the central List of Middle-earth characters. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters per BenKuykendall. Goustien (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the Orcs have articles, so they're not in List of Middle-earth characters, so what's the point of redirecting there? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a last ditch attempt to end run around notability guidlines and preseve way to indpeth not supported by reliable 3rd party sources discussions on the creation of the Hobbit movies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list was created to get around our notability guidelines. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like every day I'm seeing Tolkien character Wikipedia articles getting deleted. Most of those AFDs I haven't objected too, as the characters genuinely don't seem worthy or notable enough for their own standalone articles. But it seems to me that lists like this one are the alternative to have dozens of non-notable standalone articles like that. I think lists like this should be encouraged for that reason, not deleted. — Hunter Kahn 14:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters while the notability threshold for that article gets sorted out, and then retarget the incoming redirects to where the orcs are actually mentioned: Gothmog (Third Age) to Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Shagrat (Middle-earth) and Gorbag to The Return of the King#Book VI: The End of the Third Age, Grishnákh and Grishnakh to The Two Towers#Book III: The Treason of Isengard, Snaga to Orc (Middle-earth)#Types of Orcs, Great Goblin to List of The Hobbit characters#Goblins, and Ugluk and Uglúk to Uruk-hai#Literature. While the article seems to fail GNG, we can at least fix the incoming redirects so that they point the user to where the individual orcs are mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support all of these redirects. Even if the closing admin doesn't re-target them at closure, someone can create them afterwards. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C05F:77B6:F943:FAE5 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These area all minor characters whose names are mentioned occasionally.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telecel Group[edit]

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

Promotional organisation article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. Checked the first 16 references, press releases, profiles, interviews and app download links. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. The usual WP:CORPSPAM entry based on assorted press releases or their rewrites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signficant coverage, fails CORPDEPTH and reads like a yellowpage article. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:24, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepot, Arizona[edit]

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

Another GNIS mass-production failure. GMaps shows a single abandoned ranch.The map provided by the deprodder gives no indication that this "is [or was] an unincorporated community", much less one with notability: the small italicized names (this one at top middle), according to other GNIS searches, are tanks, springs, ranches, or other physical features, in contrast to the communities like Jakes Corner, Arizona that are in larger bold font. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fail of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only Coffeepot I could find in AZ was Cofeepot rock, which is in Sedona. The rock is more likely to be notable than the the supposed place in Gila county. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is a Coffeepot Canyon, Coffepot Tank (a very small reservoir), and this place, which, from the satellite image looks like another livestock corral where cattle are loaded/unloaded before being taken to other grazing areas in the Tonto National Forest. No evidence this is/was ever any kind of populated place. Does not meet GNG as required by GEOLAND#2.(Coffee Pot well is about 50mi SW and is unrelated). No target for redirect. MB 04:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one bulletin board, asking for directions, but it can't be verified. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2020 (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 Controversy (Prince album). Sandstein 07:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality (Prince song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Previously redirected; reverted without explanation. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 02:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Controversy (Prince album), the album on which this song appears. The text of this article isn't even about the song "Sexuality"; it's about a different song on the album, the title track, "Controversy". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Controversy (Prince album)--Wakowako (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Controversy (Prince album) per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above, but with no prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Controversy (Prince album). This may be a leftover from the days when Wikipedia allowed articles for individual songs from notable albums. The song notability requirements have since been tightened up and most such articles have been deleted or redirected, but apparently this one fell through the cracks. In any case, the song does not have enough notability on its own and anything worthy about it can be discussed at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 14 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waifu Labs[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable website. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears highly promotional in tone; not sure if WP:SPAM, but doesn’t seem to be a notable website or business either way. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - With its references, it meets the bare minimum for an article. However, it's definitely sourced better better than many articles I've seen that've existed for years, and I'm not just saying that because I created it. — Melofors T C 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, its 209 pageviews on its first day shows that its somewhat notable. — Melofors T C 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source used, Wired, is about one of the authors and not the site itself (WP:NOTINHERITED). A search did not bring up any coverage in reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly promotional (such as including the price to buy a body pillow). While there is some coverage because its...well bloody unusual...most of the sources aren't high quality and there is just not enough coverage. I find the reliability of the non-English sources to be questionable, but since I don't speak the langauge I can't fully vet them. The Futurism article is pretty brief. The Medium article is good, but not sufficient by itself. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:46, 12 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 07:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marshall Thundering Herd in the MLS Draft[edit]

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

inappropriate overdetail DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)~~ (Removed 10:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Clear crufty delete, unsourced and fails WP:LISTN. This has however been listed under the wrong football for deletion sorting, would fix but this is my last post for now. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, and opens the doors (unneccessarily) for lots more 'college in MLS' article. Giant Snowman 12:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to an Alumni section on Marshall Thundering Herd men's soccer as a plausible search term, but no such section currently exists like it does in some other team articles. Would support redirection if such a section were created, but for now, that's not a viable alternative to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2020 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Devine[edit]

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

No sources to be found about the person that would fulfil WP:NBIO. We have some sources in the article which may mention the author's work, sometimes in passing as in the NYT student assignment, but don't give basic details about the author such as education, birth place or date, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is far from perfect, but it looks to me that their are plenty of secondary sources, and therefore it should meet WP:NBIO. Tell me if I'm missing something, but most of the sources look OK to me. Puddleglum ^2.0 00:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: Sourcing: 1 = author thumbnail, not the greatest source, 2-4 = mentions of subject's work, 5 = interview, which is WP:PRIMARY, 6-7 = mentions of subject's work, 8 = interview, 9 = "growing weed", probably domain hijack, unable to evaluate original source 10 = passing mention/quote of subject, 11 = interview, 12-23 = WP:PRIMARY subject's own works, 24 = advert for subject as conference speaker.

Just expanding a bit on the NYT sources, to show how unsuitable they are, the entirety of the material in #2 is One book, “It’s OK That You’re Not OK,” by Megan Devine of Portland, Ore., has the telling subtitle “Meeting Grief and Loss in a Culture That Doesn’t Understand.” It grew out of the tragic loss of her beloved partner, who drowned at age 39 while the couple was on vacation.; the entirety of the material in #3 merely quotes #2; the entirety of the material in #4 is Not only is that unlikely to boost his mood, it could backfire by reinforcing his sense that you just don’t get it, said Megan Devine, a psychotherapist and the author of “It’s O.K. That You’re Not O.K.

None of this is sufficient for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bri, didn't get the ping. I still thing the subject is notable enough for her own article, but the sources the author chose are unsuitable for sure. Maybe Move to draftspace and notify the author, so that they can improve sourcing? Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough indepedent, indepth secondary sources to meet GNG. Weare not supposed to be sourcing articles to the subject's own work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, and therefore fails WP:GNG as per Bri's analysis above. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note there are two other Devine's, one's a horse rider and another's a Scottish mom. PK650 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2020 (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. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medhai[edit]

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

Unknown film that is undersourced. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as a review in The New Indian Express which although a bad review it is clearly independent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFILM. Coverage available in independent reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (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 and redirect to India national racquetball team#Indian team at the world championships. Sandstein 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Mehta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Also lack of sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to India national racquetball team or India national racquetball team#Indian team at the world championships. I could find no coverage of this athlete except a couple of name mentions. A listing for the IRF World Championships showed he lost there in the first round. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Did not find any coverage for this athlete. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2020 (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.