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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigida (actress)[edit]

Brigida (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Page that I created that was undeleted. This person fails WP:Nactor as of now. All of the sources except source #2 talk about her inclusion in the film Master. However, as of now it is WP:Too soon as she has only played the lead in one web series and a minor role in one film. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article doesn't pass GNG, BASIC or NACTOR. I don't see anything that meets SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. A lot of promo pieces, clickbait, but nothing that meets SIGCOV. I'm sure she is a fine actress, it might just be TOOSOON, but as of now, article doesn't meet guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G7 because "the article creator"/"main contributor" has initiated the AfD. I think TamilMirchi missed the CSD thing and brought this unnecessarily in the AfD. And the subject fails the GNG and NACTOR criteria. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 25 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Bureau for Epilepsy[edit]

International Bureau for Epilepsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Best source I could find is https://www.ilae.org/about-ilae/history-and-archives/post-wwii which given the close relationship between ILAE and IBE isn't really independent. Daask (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 references from what look like perfectly respectable books. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a respected international org, quick search found mentions at NIH [[1]], WHO [[2]]. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it difficult to understand how that is the best source the nominator could find when there were better sources already cited in the article before nomination. Loads more can be found by simply clicking on the words "books" and "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As per above, simply clicking Books and Scholar, links and links and links are found. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SNOW -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 26 September 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 Rahul Dravid#Achievements and awards. And selectively merge anything relevant. Consensus is to not keep this, with a split between delete and merge. Sandstein 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid[edit]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Statscruft overload, most of the key achievements are summarised already on his BLP article. Nomination similar to that for Ricky Ponting Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS; article consisting mostly of indiscriminate trivia, anything significant should already be included in the main article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I have nothing for this list specifically, I have something against these AfDs. Before we proceed any further with this AfD, I would want to point at these below listings, and get a consensus on the same action that needs to be undertaken at all of these lists, if we are recommending a delete on one, it should permeate all of these lists. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non exhaustive list below

• I think discussing each article on its individual merits is where we should be heading. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of fancruft, not to mention unsourced sections. Little value in most of this trivia. The really important bits can be covered in his main article. The above lists are classic WP:OTHERSTUFF examples too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Rahul Dravid#Achievements_and_awards. The article in general is pretty well sourced with 83 sources and probably due to existence of this article, the main article Rahul Dravid was not significantly developed with theses facts. I believe something on the lines of Virender Sehwag#Records & MS Dhoni#International records can be developed from this article and its sourcing. Roller26 (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As per Ktin's comment, the only similar article of a top Indian cricket player that I could find was Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. If there is consensus we can bundle up that article with this AfD. Roller26 (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it should be nominated as well. My preference would be an individual AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ajf773, If you are working this AfD -- you should work all the articles in the list that I have provided as an aggregate. Else, this would be selective white-washing. Try this with a List of career achievements by Michael Jordan or List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal and we will know the commitment. Ktin (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from listing those yourself. Should be a slam-dunk delete (see what I did there...) as they are both classic examples of WP:NOTSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I wouldn't list any of them because I believe that each and every one of them have a reason to exist within en.wiki. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies and absolutely deserves to exist in en.wiki.

If we are deleting it for one article on the grounds that it does not belong here, the structuring framework itself has to be reconsidered, and not just the AfD. Ktin (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this one as fancruft, same as the other previous AfDs mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics which have been deleted previously. All the ones mentioned (apart from Sachin) don't seem to be cricketers, so would be wrong to equate them to this AFD, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joseph2302, May I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  because trying to bloat this AFD by talking about 100 other articles is the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There have been multiple cricket AFDs about this, and the cricket project has demonstrated that these cricket stats lists aren't acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Rahul Dravid#Achievements_and_awards. While this appears fancruft, it belongs with the Rahul Dravid article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly stats. Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, may I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Coming from WP:GOLF we have List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus and List of career achievements by Tiger Woods and that's it. 2 mega stars. List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook - who? utter nonsense. I'd vote delete for that one too. Anyway the WP:Other stuff exists argument is discouraged. Nigej (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, Appreciate your response. It is easy to call this WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. To be clear, I am not making an argument that other stuff exists. I am making a case that this (i.e. List of awards and achievements) is a structuring construct that is available (and encouraged) for large biographies, and we should not be AfDing individual articles but going and making a case that this structuring article needs to be removed, if thats what we are saying.

  This whole -- we need it for Michael Jordan, but do not need it for Kobe Bryant approach does not work. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're wrong there. It's the nature of AfDs that we have to make judgements about notability, generally about the person but in this case about the need to have a second highly detailed statistical article. There has to be some line, otherwise we'd have two articles on all cricketers. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, Now we are talking -- is this AFD about notability? Until now that has not been mentioned. Can you confirm that this AfD is about notability? And, pardon my saying -- until now, all the arguments have been lazy ones about 'fancruft' or 'fancraft' or WP:NOTSTATS. Ktin (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:N "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." See WP:AfD "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I'm assuming from these quotes that all AfDs are about "notability"Nigej (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, I have nothing against this AfD if this AfD was structured as one that was proposed because the article was not "notable". Until you brought it up a moment ago, no one had even attempted to make a case for this AfD based on lack of notability. There are other lazy arguments being peddled like fancruft, fancraft etc.

  Now, pray, tell me why this article is not notable. Ktin (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because, in my view, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Nigej (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, same as my point to the other editor below. WP:BEBOLD and cull the segments that need to be culled. An AfD is an expensive process to enforce quality improvements, and this should be done through our regular editorial feedback. Ktin (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you're twisting the argument. An AfD is where we express views. I stick to my initial "Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient." Nigej (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, and we are back to square one. Anyways not a productive conversation. Not a productive AfD. Ktin (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Just challenging people's honestly-held views is not generally a productive way forward. And neither is the desire to always have the last word. Nigej (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, absolutely no desire to have the last word. Please take it. Notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not a single person including the nominator has been able to explain why this article needs to be deleted, other than pointing to another AfD for Ricky Ponting, which btw should be stopped as well. Using terms like 'fancruft' or 'funcruft' are not productive to the conversation. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies here at en.wiki, and is used for sportspersons, entertainers, and multiple other categories. If a single AfD is being pursued in this ad-hoc manner, the structuring framework itself needs to be done away with, and not an ad-hoc AfD of the kind that is being seen here. Ktin (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my earlier !vote (which you seem to have overlooked) if you take the time to go through this list, it fails WP:NOTSTATS badly with endless indiscriminate, unexplained and context-free snippets of information, much of which is unsourced. Also, many of the "records" are not records at all but "one of the top x" bites of trivia. Cut all the problem content away and almost everything that is left is already included in the main article. A clear and obvious deletion candidate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, WP:BEBOLD and cull out the trivia, if that's what you want to do. AfD is an expensive process to go down along, when article improvements can be enabled by simpler edits. Ktin (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were a notable standalone subject (and no-one has offered and argument that it is), it's so bad that WP:TNT would be the best option. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, pardon my saying, but that seems an excuse to not be WP:BOLD. Ktin (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time to stop WP:BLUDGEONing? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, makes it two of us, doesn't it?

Anyways, as I mentioned to the other editor, notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, lists such as these are almost always the result of a WP:SPLIT with notability inherited from the main subject. That would be the case here, but it doesn't appear to have been a formal split, so it's more of a WP:FORK with extra indiscriminate cruft. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge only the essential information to Rahul Dravid, per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge of anything that's remotely actually notable to the main article - preferably as actual prose in an actual article which attempts to actually summarise things properly. Then redirect and keep a watch on the base article which is an obviously unnecessary fork. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:06, 26 September 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 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance artifacts[edit]

List of Dragonlance artifacts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and maybe GAMEGUIDE if you stretch it a bit. None of the few non-primary sources provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. They are just trivial mentions of no worth to this article. Such information should be summarized in the main article per WP:WAF. There is no justification for needing so much context on in-universe items in a general encyclopedia without the backing of real world information. These belong on a fan wiki. The previous AfD does not appear to have brought forth any sources not yet included in the article either. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Entirely comprised of in-universe WP:PLOT information. The vast majority of the content here is unsourced. The few entries that are sourced are mostly sourced to primary material. The few non-primary sources being used have almost no coverage of the actual topic - they are reviews of films or games in which one of these items happened to appear, and are mentioned as part of the plot summary of those products. None of the actual individual items here have their own articles (as well they shouldn't) so this is not useful as a navigational list, and those very brief mentions of one or two of the items in the handful of secondary sources do not discuss the overall concept of the topic, so it fails WP:LISTN. I would maybe be OK if this were simply redirected to Dragonlance#World, but nothing should be merged, particularly since the eponymous Dragonlances themselves, the only one of these objects that has a smidgen of notability, are already covered there. Rorshacma (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article is OR FANCRUFT that fails LISTN. There is nothing to merge here because it is all OR based on primary.   // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Dragonlance#World based on available sources per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Dragonlance#World: First, the current state of the article is not the decisive point here. Did the nominator do a search for more sources both for the group and the individual items, as should have been done before an AfD according to the relevant guidelines? Because there is no mention of no hits appearing in the respective search engines.

Second, there are already secondary sources in the article, if only a few. The deletion voters lament the absence of secondary and non-plot summary sources, but they also oppose the merge of the non-plot summary source by Wolf (only one I can see now, but there it is), even though the corresponding section in the target article is as yet missing both secondary sources any non-plot summary information. So should we preserve such content in Wikipedia or not!?

Given the found limitation of secondary sources here a merge could be reasonable. As I don't think the analysis provided would fit very well at Dragonlance#World, though, I personally would prefer to simply keep it here. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to the extent that you can for such a vague topic, but BEFORE isn't really relevant to the validity of a nomination anyway. It's just an expected courtesy. I see no particular need for the retention of that one reference because it's a rather trivial mention. It also appears Raistlin Majere handles all the necessary context of the item and already contains multiple references to that source, so it's not like there's even any loss. TTN (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That one secondary source by Wolf does not appear to actually be a reliable source. It is a grad student's thesis, that was published by "Grin", a company that allows you to "Publish for free & earn money" on student papers. Essentially, it is a self-published student paper, and thus not something we can consider a reliable, secondary source, so no, we should not preserve or merge said content. If the argument to keep or merge is being based entirely on the existence of that source, I would ask that @BOZ: and @Daranios: take another look and reconsider their stance. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TTN Thanks for doing the WP:BEFORE search. A nominator does not have to do this. Just as no contributor has to adhere to WP:GNG. There are no rules on Wikipedia, only guidelines. But if one does follow the WP:AfD guideline (which is the basis of what we are doing here), then you have to, to quote "be sure to ... Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". So such a search is not "just an expected courtesy".

@Rorshacma Thanks for looking into this. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of Wolf, but I agree that it is below the standard set by Wikipedia's guideline.

That leaves us with only a few plot-summary sources. I see no reason why we should not preserve them. So until further sources are found, I change my suggestion to merge and redirect. Daranios (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Nothing here appears to be eminently merge-able and isn't already in the Dragonlance article. The name also isn't a plausible search, so delete makes sense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All WP:PLOT information and fails WP:LISTN / WP:GNG. This isn't the kind of thing where a redirect makes much sense. But have at it. Archrogue (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no non-plot content to merge to Dragonlance article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma for lacking appropriate sources. All sourced to primary sources or trivial mentions. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and the WP:GNG for having no third-party out-of-universe coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some more bits from secondary sources have been added/sourced. While mostly (but not exclusively) plot information, that information is at least in part not present in the Dragonlance article. So why should it not be preserved in order to improve that or other related articles? Daranios (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Because just like the secondary sources already in the article, the information is barely about the subject of the article. They are on the plots of particular products that happen to mention that one of these appear in them. For example, the "Dungeons and Desktops" reference you added literally has one sentence describing one of the objects entirely as a plot summary, which is "The party's quest is a desperate attempt to recover the Disks of Mishakal, upon which are inscribed the teachings of the True Gods", which you somehow managed to turn into five separate citations. The Robertson article also only speaks of a couple of the items merely when summarizing the plots of the franchise, again with only a sentence or two - the entire coverage of the Blue Crystal Staff in the paper is a single sentence, "For example, the story of Riverwind's quest to find the Blue Crystal Staff is mentioned and somewhat opaquely told in Chronicles, Volume i; told as a song in Tales, Volume i; and told in full (and in prose) in Preludes II, Volume i: Riverwind the Plainsman (1990)". Adding in more sources that are no better than any of the current sources that have already been dismissed as not appropriate for retention does not suddenly make the article now need to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you care to take another look, I am at this point not arguing for the article to be retained. I have changed my keep vote after your argument.

The critique was that there are too few secondary sources, and that all content here based on secondary sources is present in the target article(s). This is not the case. So I still maintain that there is something to be merged.

I am still adding to this article instead of another one because I have a faint hope that enough may come up to make it worthwhile. But as already other deletion discussions are raised clamoring for attention, it seems I won't have as much time as I thought.

As for me turning one sentence into five different citations: I did not create any of that content. I only found a secondary source for it. And as too many primary and too few secondary sources was one of the starting points of the discussion, I am surprised that adding them should be a negative thing. I also did not split up the one source to make it look more important. But there is primary-based content interspersed. By giving the reference at each respective sentence, I wanted to make clear which is which. If it would be better done differently, please do. Daranios (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dragonlance, if any of the new content is worth saving, which I somewhat doubt, it can be merged from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 1 October 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 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shawl[edit]

Black Shawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Being the wife of Crazy Horse does not presume notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirect to Crazy Horse. It appears from finding bare sourcing on that page and performing a reasonable gsearch (under "Tasina Sapewin") this subject is somewhat verified. I agree with the nominator there seems to be insufficient sourcing presented (or easily found) to warrant a separate article at this time. I'd be happy to be proved otherwise. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Switch to keep per WP:HEY. Thanks to Toughpigs for looking harder for sourcing than I did myself. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found a great deal of coverage, and added many references to the article. Crazy Horse: A Lakota Life (2014) describes their courtship and relationship in detail. Crazy Horse: The Lakota Warrior's Life and Legacy (2016) and Crazy Horse and Custer: The Epic Clash of Two Great Warriors at the Little Bighorn (2003) also have a good deal of coverage about Black Shawl's life. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References added to the article show the notability of this individual Spudlace (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per references show notability of individual now. oncamera 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and thanks to Toughpigs for good sourcing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Part of attempted mass removal of articles about Native Americans without justification by User:Magnolia677. Not the article it was when first nominated for deletion. WP:HEY and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an inappropriate comment and I wish you would stop attacking nominators at AFD. Lev!vich 20:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact. You may not like the facts, but they exist. A little light on the subject is warranted. This was a comment on process, not an attack on the nominators. I wish that editors who start AFDs would not start them without complying with WP:Before. The outcomes will speak for themselves. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with redirect to Crazy Horse - all of the sources put forward so far are about Crazy Horse; they just mention Black Shawl in passing in the course of talking about Crazy Horse's life. The sources cover the wedding; that she tended to his wounds; but next to nothing about the woman herself. The reader is better off learning about her in the context of Crazy Horse's life, since that's how the sources present it. It's unfortunate because I'm sure there was much more to her life than marrying her husband and tending to his wounds... but the problem with having a stand alone page without the proper supporting sources is that we end up saying that, well, Black Shawl was Crazy Horse's wife; she married him; she tended to his wounds; she died of influenza. That really doesn't present anything even close to a comprehensive, accurate, or neutral depiction of the biography subject. It does a disservice to the subject. If all we know about Crazy Horse's second wife is that her name was Black Shawl and she died in 1927 of influenza, then we should just present that information in the article about Crazy Horse. If there is significant coverage of Black Shawl found in the future, the redirect can always be expanded into a proper biography. Lev!vich 20:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on a preponderance of sources. Toughpigs is a careful !voter and they have done some work here to show that this person meets WP:N. WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the closer (and I guess to the editors too): I've requested a number of the dozens of books about Crazy Horse from my local libraries. I should have some of them by next week. I will add any relevant information about Black Shawl to the article. Considering that she lived well into the 20th century, I expect to read at least some more about her life and experiences. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfman vs. Baragon[edit]

Wolfman vs. Baragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable, unreleased fan film. A WP:BEFORE turned up only fan sites and reddit posts. PROD removed by article creator before said editor was banned as being a SOCKPUPPET. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks credibility, verified sources, and no value to merit its own article. Armegon (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable fan film with no reliable sources discussing it. Note that the subject of this article was already created and deleted via AFD under a slightly different name just two months ago, as seen here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all above. I turned up one blog, and a moderate quantity of user-generated garbage sources. Non-notable by a long shot. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I PRODed the article for lack of notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I searched up the short film in both English and Japanese. The sources that appeared weren’t very good. I’ll have to go with delete, but if anyone can bring decent references to the table, I’ll definitely change my mind. — Coastaline (talk) 02:31, 26 September 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. Izno (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leakey[edit]

Jonathan Leakey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person was a child who stumbled on some ancient bones because his parents were paleoanthropoloigists who brought him along to the dig. He did nothing of true not, and has not received the coverage to justify the article. As it is the article is only sourced to a website directly operated by his family John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: although an interesting narrative, it is self-referential, and half the article is about the family. Fails WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLPSELFPUB.GDX420 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olga, Arizona[edit]

Olga, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A passing siding obviated by double tracking, old aerials show nothing at all here except the track and the paralleling road. More recently there is some industrial agriculture just to the south, but no buildings of any sort, nor anything marked in older topos except the name "Olga" next to the siding. Searching is understandably difficult but I get nothing that indicates anyone ever lived here. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mass-produced junk, not a community Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think article creator Onel5969 intended this to be junk. It is listed in GNIS as a populated place (yes, know there are issues with this in some instances), but there's some evidence that a section foreman resided at Olga at one time, so there are instances of people claiming to be from Olga.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of which means mass-producing iffy stubs by pulling from a questionable database is a good idea. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the GNIS is "questionable database" you might want to look into what many people think about Wikipedia! We just work to make it better. Personally I feel enriched to have learned about Olga. I want to know who it is named after now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS is very good with stating that something with a certain name existed at a certain point. Given some of what GNIS calls "populated places", I'd say it's a terrible idea to equate "populated place" with a community, so it's more rather bad editorial decision. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilday Mill, Missouri for two of the more obvious ones. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yep, a siding. Notability is a strong no. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Location is run of the mill.TH1980 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be an actual stop on the Southern Pacific. [3] is a contemporary mention. This 1910 newspaper article says marble was shipped from Olga. This 1921 newspaper article does list someone as being "from" Olga, but I don't think that is enough to consider this a populated place. I would also support a redirect if there were an article with this level of detail (stations/stops) on the railroad, but there isn't. MB 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a rusted siding, booked out of service. Notability is a strong no, as per above. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If someone can figure out what railroad line segment this was on, we may be able to create an article on that line with a list of main stops, which is more useful for readers than geostubs anyway.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I dug around and determined this is on the Southern Pacific's line built across eastern Arizona in 1880, which reached Deming, New Mexico late in that year. In March 1881, the Santa Fe's lines from the east reached Deming, making this line the second transcontinental line across the United States. None of this makes Olga independently notable, but I suspect I can create an article suitable for this to redirect to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of articles on rail lines giving a list of stations. Not keen on the idea of having every such station redirecting to the list. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. There are a lot of stations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Olga was part of a previous blanket AfD which had a procedural keep. Having a separate AfD is fine with me. In the blanket AfD, Pontificalibus wrote "Also keep Olga as this map (key) shows there were a number of dwellings located there." In that blanket AfD, I wrote "However, it seems that Olga is not a "Populated, legally recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND #1 - there are no citations for a Post Office or form of local government. I'm seeing [Results_of_Spirit_Leveling_in_Arizona_18 references to Olga Siding], so WP:STATION would apply. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition" says "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" I don't think we have found the non-trivial coverage yet for Olga. Perhaps Olga should be deleted? BTW - there is a List of places in Arizona that looks to be a dump of GNIS. The Arizona list is far too long when compared with List of places in California. And while I'm at it, most of the Arizona pages use https://arizona.hometownlocator.com as a source. It looks to me like https://arizona.hometownlocator.com is an aggregator of GNIS and other public data and is not WP:RS. Perhaps https://arizona.hometownlocator.com should be removed as a reference on these articles?" Cxbrx (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Takes a considerable stretch of the imagination to consider this notable in any fashion. Not a community and not notable under basic Wiki standard: multiple in-depth articles from reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 16:24, 30 September 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. Izno (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pío López Obrador[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL / WP:BLPCRIME, which states "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." All we have here are some newspaper allegations of so far minor calibre, not even a court case or a truly major scandal (the kind that gets massive street protests and the like), about a minor politician (a candidate, but not elected) who is the brother of a notable person. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nominator's assessment is correct as a WP:BLPCRIME/WP:POLITICIAN fail with trivial biographical depth beyond the accusations of corruption. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion The subject is a significant personality. Considering that the government's number one priority is the fight against corruption, it is important to include the article.Calmecac5 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just being related to a famous person doesn't make people notable in their own right. A significant personality should get non-trivial reliably sourced coverage about who Pío López Obrador is as an independent subject. Creating a biography of living person solely composed of unproven allegations violates multiple Wikipedia policies, as I and the nominator have stated above. If the media aren't producing an in-depth profile of this person, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to shine a spotlight on him. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose deletion. The information possibly (this is theoretical, have not assessed) should be merged into the brother's or some other article, but I vehemently oppose deleting it because Mexicans aren't rioting in the streets. If nothing else it should be in Corruption in Mexico Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you really linking a WP:BLP to various scandals and to drug cartels without any actual evidence (these aren't even mentioned in the newspaper articles), never mind a conviction? @Elinruby: I would urge you to remove these allegations, as this is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand BLP policy, AGF. [This https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-odebrecht/mexico-asks-brazils-moro-for-help-with-its-odebrecht-graft-probe-source-idUSKCN1SD2QE] makes it extremely plausible that such a claim has been made (see Dilma and Lula).

• I am not linking anything, I am saying this is not a case for speedy deletion just because the Mexican people are not in the street.
• The Mexican people have in fact been in the street and in the jungle for some time in Chiapas
• I am not endorsing the truth of the reporting. If convinced it is untrue I will withdraw my objection.
• I have not evaluated the sources. This would be a better basis for making this decision than whether there is an insurrection, imho.
• It is also possible that these references are hit pieces, which would also be notable.
• I say these things as someone who has spent several years with the material. It is relevant to Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht pages. These are absolutely in line with Wikipedia policy; I was named editor of the week for some of my stuff on Operation Car Wash. There is definitely a BLP concern but at least at this point I disagree with any speedy deletion. I have categorized the article under Corruption in Mexico. It is relevant to this category whether true or not. I have also identified the Chiapas politician. I suggest vetting the sources if you want to delete it. Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you probably don't know that the bagman is always somebody's brother. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have removed the BLP violations for you then. You are using a reuters article which doesn't mention Pio as a justification for your smears on him. It doesn't matter if they may be true or not, without reliable sources making the same accusations they shouldn't be discussed here (and without a conviction they shouldn't be in the article). IF you reinstate the allegations and implications I will bring this to some appropriate noticeboard instead. Fram (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverting that. Feel free to complain. I privided a direct link between Obredecht and Obrador. You have completely missed the point. At least one of the references provided looks reliable, and even corporate and mainstream. The other seems to be some sort of blog but it looks professional and has a staff box that lists quite a few editors. I provided a gold=plated link (The Economist?) for a connection between the Obredechts and Obrador. I am in fact suggesting that he could have been set up. If you do not think the Obredechts have something to do with Brazil, please inform yourself before commenting further. I have not ruled out a BLP violation yet, but it us definitely not a speedy delete. After identifying the other politician mentioned, I checked his article and hr is not just some Chiapas politician, he is a cabinet member in the Mexican government. If he is making cash payments to the reformist president's brother, it is notable, sorry, and it doesn't matter how indignant you are. I find your defense of this fellow's honor fascinating, but it is also in the BLP for thr other politician, and apparently it's on video. That is pretty freaking reliable. Of course, this doesn't conclusively prove that is it true, but now that we know it isn't a candidate for speedy delete we can discuss whether there are BLP violations, and this depends on whether this is true, which on wikipedia is largely determined by the reliability of the sources. And these are, based onn editorial review. Elinruby (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again and raised at the BLP noticeboard. Please dont' reintroduce the text until it is settled one way or the other there. As for your reply, your "gold-plated link" doesn't mention the subject of the article/AfD, so can not be used to introduce any links between him and other crimes or criminal organisations. I have no interest at all in whether the Mexican president or others are involved with whatever scandal, country, ...; if you want to link Pio Lopez Obrador to any of these things, then you need sources linking him directly to them, not connecting the dots on your own. Fram (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Elinruby: Wikipedia does not work this way. Per WP:Verifiability, especially the WP:PROVEIT section, it is for the contributing editor to vet the sources that support the content. Sources should be reputable for checking their facts. If a source is a hit piece, Wikipedia should almost never use it, even as evidence of notability. Brazil is only relevant here in that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME apply there too. Secondary figures don't mentions, let alone Wikipedia articles, especially when the accusations are not proven. Finally, Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. It is not Wikipedia's mission to illuminate topics that should be of general interest or to right great wrongs in general. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely copyvio: My Spanish isn't quite good enough to be sure this article lifts whole paragraphs from its references, but I think it does. If so, that is reason enough to delete it, but at least one of those sources looks pretty reputable. Would be interested to know what others think, but, I suspect there may be some truth there, but I don't know what it is. I have not followed Mexico in much detail. Obrador is supposed to be a populist reformer. Important if true. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC),[reply]

The English-language sources are catching up to the Spanish ones you still don't seem to have read. Meanwhile, do not delete this article. There are plentiful reliable sources (FT, Bloomberg, Reuters) that the PEMEX scandal is related to Car Wash, and the video of the brother surfaced a day or two later, which definitely does feel like retaliation but also raises some serious news coverage. I know it's complicated, but the point is this: it is no longer a speedy delete, not happening. The fact that there is a video is now verified, and my previous analysis of the provided sources is irrelevant since we are going to base it on the English-language financial press, and won't have to worry about it. By the way, one of the allegations in the PEMEX scandal is that a prior president allowed cartels to steal oil ;) so I suppose, AGF, that you are unaware of the ABCs of this kind of corruption. . I will rewrite this in my own words to fix the copyvio; and link it in to Odebrecht with lotsa sources. It perhaps would be better to merge it but I will have to look at this further. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mentioning the incident somewhere is fine but having a standalone article on him is not, WP:CRIME. Practically all the coverage is just "AMLO's brother on tape!", occasionally some short paragraph about who the person is. Little of what's currently in the section even directly relates to him. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails Notability for Politicians and judges since he was never elected to anything and received insufficient coverage of his campaign. Also, per Invalid criteria, notability cannot be established through a relationship with someone notable. Essentially there is only coverage of this person for one event. And the event lacks notability. I notice that the article ends by saying his brother had promised to end corruption. It reads more like a hit piece on the president than a serious article. TFD (talk) 21:16, 24 September 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravikanth (actor)[edit]

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

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

This actor has played minor roles in several films. Only one source exists:^[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' this is a good article with refrences to imdb which is a verified source. Author Sanju (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - ImdB is not totally reliable, but you are correct in mentioning there are references, which the nominator has missed/ignored. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - please look again at the article. There is more than one full length article on the individual, as well as several other sources reflecting the notability of his films (where he also gets a mention). Neutral Fan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMDb is not notable. Neutral Fan is the creator of the article. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete: A few minor roles, nothing significant for him. IMDb is not WP:RS. VocalIndia (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

changed my opinion to Keep passes WP:NACTOR as played major role in several Indian film. VocalIndia (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - minor roles, huh? Some key supporting roles in the 90s and notable work on large television shows, as listed per the sources, suggest otherwise. Neutral Fan (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete over concerns regarding the satisfaction of WP:NACTOR. Only seven references provided for over fifteen listed acting credits. ie: Lacks sufficient verifiability. Also, the mere presence of sources doesn't make the subject automatically notable. Basics like even character names are missing for most of the listed credits which makes one question the notability of this individual as an actor. Obvious bias from the creator of the article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hausen, California[edit]

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

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

I cannot find anything that mentions this as anything other than a post office, and following Durham's directions takes me to a large farmstead which in 1960s topos was labelled "Bare Ranch". So there's no evidence of a settlement beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-07 Ashton, California Group nomination withdrawn.

• Delete. The only mention comes from Durham and he calls it a post office, not a community. Lots of fourth-class post offices were established in stores, ranches, train stations, etc. Not an indication of a community and nothing that meets basic Wiki notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:38, 27 September 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 Battle Gear. Nothing sourced to merge. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 17:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Gear 3[edit]

Battle Gear 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unfortunately, I do not think this is able to pass WP:GNG. Despite being a long and overly-detailed page, there isn't a single source here to be found and comes off as fancruft. The only actual review I could find is one from Famitsu, which isn't enough to make this notable. Outside of brief mentions and some announcements, I could find nothing else. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Battle Gear Like the nom said, the only sources out there are short news blurbs. Not the type of significant coverage we want. However, there are enough games in the series that a series article seems feasible. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Battle Gear: while it's possible more Japanese-language sources exist that demonstrate notability that's beyond my research ken, I don't think what I've found indicates that there's a ton that can justify a separate article (the Japanese-language version of this article disappointingly doesn't provide anything that's useful.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle Gear 4 is also an article so that likely should be redirected as well.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yebo Group[edit]

The Yebo Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No effective referencing. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nothing but spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- notability not established, promotional article. 1292simon (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a free advertising source. Article is totally promotional. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't able to find additional sources, article is promotional Spudlace (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 1 October 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 King 3B. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver sonic trombone[edit]

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

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

Article King 3B already exists; Not really encyclopedic content as Wikipedia is not a directory. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Should it not be merged to King 3B, if they're the same thing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to King 3B Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 14 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hobby[edit]

Paul Hobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No effective references. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No a single biographical available. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional bio-article and I agree with the nominator’s assessment re. notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject does not pass WP:NBIO. 1292simon (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG.GDX420 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 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. There is little support for outright deletion and consensus that the content is notable. A merge (which support for is in the minority) can still be discussed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Bull[edit]

One Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Being the adopted son of Crazy Horse does not presume notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems easy to find more coverage of this notable warrior. See Hokahey! A Good Day to Die!, for example. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I looked at the source you mentioned, and only part of the book is available online. What specifically in this source supports notability? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems almost an impossible task without actually looking through a healthy percentage of the hundreds of books about Sitting Bull (not Crazy Horse) and the Lakota...every mention may only be a trivial mention..."one" and "bull" and "lakota" is almost too broad because of the "one." Caro7200 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Assuming that information on the page is correct (apparently it is), having a separate page for this person is completely justifiable per WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- I think there is too much content for it to be appropiate to merge to Crazy Horse. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per this source, a magazine article written by David Humphreys Miller, a person who met him, he was the last hereditary chief of the Hunkpapa tribe. oncamera 05:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and request the nominator amend the nomination statement's serious error in confusing two significant Native American people. Put a strikethrough and italics or bold with the correction or something. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are NOT the same person. Please pace your nominations so you don't get confused again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The 1910 Reading Eagle article is quite extraordinary: a medium-sized contemporary newspaper article about the subject. It suggests that there are other reliable sources to be found. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to me like this can be expanded. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hope to be able to expand when I get my hands on this book. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Part of attempted mass removal of articles about Native Americans without justification by User:Magnolia677. Not the article it was when first nominated for deletion. WP:HEY and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well documented notable person, clearly meets WP:GNG. Article is well-referenced. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with redirect to Sitting Bull - like Sitting Bull's other sons that are also at AFD, this one is just not notable in his own right. Every source put forward so far is about Sitting Bull. Consequently, nearly every sentence in our article is actually about Sitting Bull not One Bull. As with Crow Foot, the only thing we know about One Bull is that he was Sitting Bull's son, and that's all he was known for; that's not notability. The reader will be better served reading what little we know about One Bull in an article about his father. Lev!vich 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This article says things about One Bull. The sources say even more. Regarding those sources, the comment about them all being about Sitting Bull is neither accurate nor relevant. Consider 1 and 2 are about One Bull, and just because a source covers Sitting Bull more than One Bull doesn't mean it won't work for the purposes of an article about the latter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 is a local paper covering an election and says "Sitting Bull's Son a Candidate" in the subheadline. Doesn't contribute much to notability and very little to content about the subject. No. 2 is One Bull being interviewed about Sitting Bull. Neither satisfy GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage of the article subject in my view. Lev!vich 21:10, 1 October 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. Izno (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norris-Whitney Communications[edit]

Norris-Whitney Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertorialized article about a magazine publishing company, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing WP:CORP. Essentially the notability claim on offer here is that the company and its titles exist, which is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the closest thing to "referencing" present here at all is a linkfarmed stack of external links to the company's own self-published websites for itself and its magazines. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Norcomm" -- but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which companies are entitled to place advertorialized content about themselves just because their own self-created web presence technically verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nomination, this is advertorial. The page creator has never come back, and User:Numblenits is probably a sock, not seen since 2008. Their contributions are very similar to content in this article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:39, 28 September 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 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Foot[edit]

Crow Foot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic should be expanded and disambiguated as, not only was there Sitting Bull's son, but there was also a notable chief of this name. We have him at Crowfoot but some encyclopedias have him as Crow Foot too – The Encyclopedia Of Native American Biography. Such encyclopedias also cover Sitting Bull's son too and so there's no case for deletion. Applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Crow Foot (disambiguation). pburka (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There's quite a bit of information about him in Voices of Wounded Knee (2001) pp. 201-211, among other books and scholarly sources. However there might a reasonable one-event argument against keeping. pburka (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as per above. Deep search turns up the photo, and variant spellings. Worth keeping and improving the article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited by User:Whiteguru and user:Andrew Davidson. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above keepers. And comment: I have quite a few books on hold that should cover Crow Foot; I will improve the article when I have access to the sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with redirect to Sitting Bull - the only thing we know about this person is that he was Sitting Bull's son who died with his father. Both sources brought forward so far are about Sitting Bull, with maybe a paragraph about Crow Foot. Being someone famous's son does not make a subject notable, and the reader will be better served reading what little we know about Crow Foot in an article about his father. BTW, Sitting Bull's son Crow Foot is not the same person as Chief Crowfoot in case there was any confusion. Lev!vich 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have room in the encyclopedia for this person. Sources exist in books. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the coverage in Voices of Wounded Knee that pburka posted above. Levivich says that the only coverage is that he's Sitting Bull's son. I can only see snippets, but from those snippets it looks like Crow Foot is discussed in some detail, not simply that he was Sitting Bull's son full stop. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Idk how anyone looks at Voices of Wounded Knee and says it has a lot of detail. He is only mentioned on three pages: 201, 202, and 211. This is what it says about Crow Foot: (1) he was a twin, (2) born 1876, (3) shot in 1890 by Lone Man (in the same altercation in which his father was killed). That's it. Sitting Bull: The Life and Times of an American Patriot has more than Voices of Wounded Knee but still very little. And what else is there to say about a 14 year old boy who is only known for having died with his father? How does this even get past WP:A7, nevermind WP:N? Lev!vich 00:17, 2 October 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 no consensus. I have to discount the "keep" for personal attacks, and the proposed merger makes little sense given that it proposes merging another article into this one, which leaves us with no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Intellectual Disability Professional[edit]

Qualified Intellectual Disability Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. Does not meet WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Talk:Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional#Proposed_merge_of_Qualified_Mental_Retardation_Professional_into_Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Both articles have been nominated for deletion based on not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.   // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article does not support claim for notability and BEFORE shows none. None of the sources provide SIGCOV of the topic directly and in-depth. Further a job description will vary in different jurisdictions. The topic meets NOTEVERYTHING, it is encyclopedic.

Sources in the article are primary, others do not even mention the job title, and none meet WP:GNG guidelines to establish notability.   // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 21 September 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach Rhino Force[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Update of article previously deleted at Afd and rejected at Afc. Highly promotional. scope_creep^Talk 04:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was previously deleted under the title Rhino Force; AfD here (if someone knows how to manually add the "previous AfDs" box at this point, please do). Sourcing somewhat more expansive now than last time, from what I remember, but still far from great. Seeing that Hemmersbach seems likely to survive the current AfD, I'd suggest merging there, but then the single paragraph already present in the article looks to do the job just fine. Hence, just redirect to Hemmersbach might be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DRV considered the draft version of this article suitable for main space: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force. I'm pretty sure this article was created in draft before Rhino Force, the article that was deleted.Thincat (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was non-consensus or rather a very rough consensus generated via absence of discussion. The references in the article are junk. They are a mix of press-releases, YouTube videos that nobody is watching, run of the mill business news, passing mentions and tangentially linked information. On top of that, it is almost a NLP article, with even section names being branded in NLP style of Hemmersbach Rhino Force. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi all, I have added in more articles from respectable journalism organisation Welt, DW and Pheonix. All are large German news agencies. Pheonix is a free-to-air channel on National tv in Germany while the other two are sigificant newspapers. Please note for the one from Welt I also referenced the jouranlists post as it is in english and the Welt.de article is behind a paywall. If you want more articles I can search for more. Please let me know and i'd be happy to do so. MichaelDubley (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Youtube videos that nobody is watching and a [4] a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scope creep:, The youtube video is a direct upload by a major German news broadcaster, Pheonix[5]. That is evidence for notability and a good reference. Does wiki not permit videos as references? The other article is a written article by DW a major German journalism organisation[6]. Why did you remove this? Finally you are right regarding the South China Morning Post. I have just read the wiki guidelines to notability and note press-releases hold no weight for notability and this discussion. However, wiki does allow press releases to be included so can we please keep it? While it seems Hemmersbach did pay for the post I am sure South China Morning Post does not allow all articles to be posted just because someone has money. I think it thus hold value to the reader. It doesn't make sense we keep deleting each others changes so I'll wait for your reply or someone else's judgment before restoring the changes you made. Many thanks! MichaelDubley (talk) 03.06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No one is watching it. It has 500 odd views. It is non-notable and non-RS scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scope creep:, I agree the video is not notable for the youtube views. But rather the live-televison views as Pheonix is part of ZDF which makes up a 15.5% of the audience share for German TV, as of 2018. I cannot find current statistics but in 2014 it had 13% audience share and was the most watched channel. I would argue that one of the top German news channels making a full-length program on a Rhino Force project is notable. Do you agree? MichaelDubley (talk) 00:56, 9 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish search optimizer[edit]

Jellyfish search optimizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Brand new algorithm that was introduced a few months ago and has only been mentioned in two papers by the inventors. Secondary sources have not discussed this algorithm and the papers haven't received citations yet (as far as I can tell). WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON not yet picked up beyond the original researchers. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON - this is the right call; if you check article authors, you find the original researchers. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Zing^(Talk!) 03:36, 1 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspawn[edit]

Mindspawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Couldn't find independent and reliable sources to establish the artist's notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The article content appears to promotional and based on its edit history, the artist himself is involved in its creation or development. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real indication of notability Pi (Talk to me!) 16:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Search does not show any secondary sources for notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Article creator only created and edited this article back in 2006. Then, he disappeared into thin air. Also, the artist himself is also involved in the article which is always a bad sign as well. Did not found any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 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 — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Yaacov Kaufman[edit]

:Yaacov Kaufman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable designer as per WP:Notability, no awards, not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, does not have a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and not widely recognized. Sowny (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn, given the improvements in the article.An independent source is still needed for the Sandberg Prize though - the current source is the designer's website which is not sufficient. Sowny (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Umm, about "no awards", the article already lists the 1989 Sandberg Prize. Also, his profile page at the Information Center for the Israeli Art at the Israel Museum lists a bunch of other awards. I didn't try to verify them but I'm assuming they are legit. Nsk92 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an independent source for the award should be added to the article.Sowny (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NARTIST 4. (d): in several museum collections. I added a section for them, with sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick further search found this page at the Israel Museum with more detailed info about his 2003 his Norwegian Design Council Award for Industrial Design Excellence award for "Arketto" light. The page begins with: "Yaacov Kaufman came to Israel at the age of twelve and is one of the most important designers and educators in Israel today." One needs go no further. Clearly satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Not sure what the deal was with this nomination in the first place, but I suggest that it be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE, works held in multiple collections ie. Tel Aviv Museum of Art - here, the Israel Museum - here, Design Museum Holon - here, and here. ps. apologies for being slower than editors above:), and thanks to those that have improved the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: nice finds, I added the Tel Aviv Museum to the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ThatMontrealIP, this has motivated me to add a further reference showing more of his works held at Holon.:) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable with plenty of solid sources. No reason for deletion.Geewhiz (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CREATIVE as explained above. Poor nomination that should be withdrawn. TJMSmith (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep won well-known and significant awards, has a significant and well-known body of work and is widely recognized as an important and influential designer. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(b) (multiple solo exhibits at notable museums) and 4(d) (permanent collection of multiple notable museums). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 27 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truitt Battin[edit]

Truitt Battin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contrary to the assertion in the article, does not meet NFOOTY. Coverage of his social media does not rise up to GNG, and is mostly copies of the same PR. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't have an assertion of notability in the article. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly fails SNG and GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have to say I was impressed by this piece of "journalism" from a site masquerading as the website of a London newspaper (or something). Rarely have I seen so many exclamation marks in one place :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence to suggest that he has actually played a professional football match; nothing coming up on Transfermarkt or Soccerway or any other database. Seems to be a promotional article based on someone who has quite a few followers on Instagram Spiderone 11:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence for any of the claims made, clearly promotional, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article about former high school soccer player who aspired to play professionally. No evidence that he has ever played professionally (just a completely unsupported claim that he is playing in Croatia - and none of the databases that follow the Croatian pro/semi-pro leagues have any mention of him). The online coverage of his high school soccer exploits is entirely routine and hyper-local (we don't need articles about every person who played high school soccer in suburban Chicago). Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:51, 28 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean St. John[edit]

Sean St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a business executive and philanthropist, not properly sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear our inclusion standards for those occupations. Of the 13 footnotes here, just one is a genuinely acceptable piece of real media coverage about him, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only reliable source in play -- everything else here is referenced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs, dead links or sources which just briefly namecheck him as a giver of soundbite in an article about a subject other than himself, none of which are proper notability-supporting sources. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced significantly better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The articles I found on Google news were promoting his philanthropy, passing mentions or single quotes, or not WP:RS. A search of Google scholar and books, JSTOR, Gale One Academic Drive, and NYT yielded no additional sources. This person needs more significant coverage to be considered for an article. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will remove anything not backed up by RS and pass judgement on whatever's leftover, per WP:ATD.GDX420 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While there is minimal WP:GNG there is WP:NHOCKEY and C1 of WP:ECONOMIST.GDX420 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't playing in the Central Canada Hockey League fulfils WP:NHOCKEY as the CCHL is a Junior-A league. I disagree that he fulfils C1 of WP:ECONOMIST because there are not enough sources that significantly cite him or his work. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 07:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Lukashenko[edit]

Nikolai Lukashenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article is lightly sourced to very questionably WP:RS material that speculates on popular rumors. WP:OR is used to declare he has received "significant media attention" when, in fact, the sources used to support that statement say no such thing. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds a single WP:RS (versus a great many non-RS sources like tabloids, blogs, and social media) about Nikolai Lukashenko (versus passing mentions in articles about his father) in The Telegraph. Chetsford (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is more popularly referred to as Kolya Lukashenko, so a BEFORE search needs to cover that as well. Of course, the nominator rightly pointed out that being the son of the President of Belarus doesn't mean he is automatically notable. However, there are literally entire articles written about him and his involvement in politics in numerous reliable sources: BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, USA Today to name a few. Some of the sources are also present in the article's history. All in all, what we have here clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and is way, way more than a mere claim to notability by virtue of his connection to his father. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw as Nom per sources provided by Dps04. Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 24 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. I am grateful that this nomination at least spurred some improvement to the article. I really did research the name myself and found next to nothing, so thank you to the editors that did the work. (non-admin closure) JimKaatFan (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Trowell[edit]

Brian Trowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable professor. No focused, lasting coverage in reliable sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep per WP:NPROF #5. Holder of two endowed chairs: King Edward Professor of Music and Heather Professor of Music. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, endowed chairs at Oxford pass NPROF easily.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I have left a neutrally worded notification of this AfD on the creator's talk page. @JimKaatFan: It is standard practice to do this; if you use Twinkle to create your AfD it will automatically notify the article creator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Thanks for letting me know.....(Msrasnw (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
• Snow/speedy keep. Really, a named chair at Oxford, come on. Certainly passes WP:PROF#C5. Incidentally, also passes WP:PROF#C6 as a past president of a major society. I have added a section to the article with some biographical data. Recommend that the nominator quickly withdraw this nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His career definitely meets NPROF Pi (Talk to me!) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NPROF#C5 as argued by AleatoryPonderings. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:22, 25 September 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. Withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Goal 9[edit]

Sustainable Development Goal 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been redirected before, with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Development Goal 3 (by User:Jake Brockman), but it has been revamped. But what applied in that AfD applies here as well: "Reads more like a report than an encyclopaedia article". This is indeed a report, lacking secondary sourcing (there was some material with secondary sourcing synthesized into the article, which I removed). The sourcing, in a nutshell, is all programmatic and relies on primary references, and never gets away from a highly detailed summary of the goals set by the UN.

I thought this was maybe part of a school project, but now I see that it's this, Wikipedia:Meetup/Online edit-a-thon SDGs September 2020--the net effect seems to be the creation of a walled garden of sub-articles pertaining to the already inflated Sustainable Development Goals. I have no objection to someone bundling the other SDG sub-articles into this. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. this has already been discussed so many times, I am getting quite tired of it! There are 17 SDGs and they each deserve their own article. Some of them might not yet be perfect but we are working on that this week as part of the mentioned edit-a-thon. Rather help with improving the articles and finding more references than complaining that it's not good enough. Why is Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden? Do we really have to have the same discussion over and over again. See here and here. EMsmile (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, what are you trying to point at? There is no agreement on that talk page in the one section and, at any rate, it's hardly an RfC or an AfD discussion, and the second one is just a section where Sphilbrick is explaining copyright to you. That you are tired of it is not my concern: my concern is that we write articles that are notable by our standards, and that means that they have reliable secondary sources to prove they should have an article. I cannot tell from your comments here or on that talk page that you understand how notability works here--and you are certainly not providing any evidence for notability here. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to my questions: "Why is Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden?". From that it seems to me that you are saying the SDGs are not notable? And I think I understand quite well what makes a topic notable or not for Wikipedia. Those places that I linked to were indeed not AfDs but to me they were good enough because consensus was achieved. Some of the SDG articles have already been around for many years. E.g. do you also want to propose to delete SDG 6? You talked about "bundling other SDG sub-articles into this". Which ones? All 17? EMsmile (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I do agree that the SDG 9 article is weak. I had a quick look at the state of the other 16 after one week of online edit-a-thon and the SDG 9 one is probably the weakest. So an "improve" tag is definitely in order. But what worries me is that you seem to make a blanket statement saying that you don't like any of the other SDG articles and that you don't think improvement is possible and the only possible solution is deletion. Or did I misunderstand? Would you want to delete as well SDG 6, SDG 1, SDG 13 etc.? And what don't you like about the SDG article? You are finding it too long? That's why we need the sub-articles, otherwise it would be much longer still. If you have a problem with the SDG article, I suggest you put it on the talk page there so that we can improve it. Your statement of "already inflated" worries me. EMsmile (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, there was no consensus for anything relevant to this discussion in the links you pointed at. The walled garden here is used to indicate that we have a large amount of articles linked to each other and edited by the same group of editors, all of which contain loads and loads of information that is, no doubt, also found on the organizational website, in addition to huge chunks of irrelevant material whose only purpose seems to be either a. an exercise in essay writing (original research) or b. fluffing up the reflist with truly secondary sources. Sadads, one wonders why the sourcing across those articles can be so bad if there are so many editors working on them; typically that's a sign of COI. How many links to sdg.tracker.org can one article have? But I see that your "strong keep" is quickly parroted, so indeed it's pretty pointless here (though you're the only one to present a valid reason) and I'll close this myself. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- these are the organizing principles for the entire UN System and International Development community -- they are also central filters by which almost all of the scholarship, evaluation and research on the impact of international development is being measured -- without any search for sources and a very basic "will they be a subject of extensive study", they are going to be notable -- not to mention that you get hundreds of results for each in sources like Google Scholar. Sadads (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer and there is sufficient amount of reliable sources to support it. And the objection to the article's style, albeit valid, should be a starting point for improvements rather than deletion. This discussion is essentially groundless.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The SDG's are here to stay. The SDG's are the future of our planet. As per above, The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep These 17 global goals have been in place for five years. I would say we are overdue in making more information on each of them available to general readers. That it would take a while to improve the quality is normal, and having a page on Wikipedia will invite more experts to build the quality.PlanetCare (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you could write it according to our guidelines in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 September 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 Eberron#World. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World of Eberron[edit]

World of Eberron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an overly expansive deep dive into the plot of Eberron that fails WP:NOTPLOT. Eberron#World seems entirely sufficient for the context required for a general encyclopedia per WP:WAF. There do not appear to be any sources that allow the fictional setting itself to meet WP:GNG. This content is otherwise detailed like that of a fan wiki that belongs elsewhere. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Eberron#World - This article is made up completely of overly in-depth WP:PLOT information that is cited only to primary sources. The general information on the plot and world of the setting is already included on the main article, though, so leaving this as a Redirect would make sense. Redirecting would also preserve this article's history, in case there is any information that someone would want to try to integrate over, though hopefully in a much more succinct manner. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge Eberron#World - Nothing there that needs a page of it's own, maybe an editor can update Eberron#World just a little to flesh it out. And I said a little; the entire thing does not need to be merged. Timmccloud (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Eberron#World per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Eberron. The setting is definitely notable. But its individual elements mostly lack independent notability unless specifically called out. I see very few sources that make a distinction between the RPG campaign setting and the fictional planet presented as its core. Indeed, I'd say the distinction is non-existent, really. oknazevad (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what little can be, most of this is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT, sadly. Then delete, no need for a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems redundant with the Eberron article which is itself a campaign setting. There is some summary of in-universe details that could be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oknazevad. There isn't a distinction between the RPG campaign setting and this article. Just summarize and combine the two articles and you have something encyclopedic. Jontesta (talk) 15:52, 28 September 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 R. C. Hazra. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studies in the Upapurāṇas[edit]

Studies in the Upapurāṇas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this exists, can not find any in-depth coverage of it to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to R. C. Hazra (the author) per WP:CHEAP. Not seeing reviews that would establish WP:NBOOK. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to R. C. Hazra again. Maybe this time the creator will look for reliable independent sources instead of undoing the redirect. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it being someone's doctoral thesis earns it one line in their biog. If it had any coverage to speak of them maybe more. But there is no reason for this article. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:56, 27 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The George Marshall Cup[edit]

The George Marshall Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An amateur competition with almost zero coverage in secondary sources. I can't even find anything in Lincolnshire Live or any local sources. Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No evidence of significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such competitions only generate routine results/reports in local press, no significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete barely makes any local coverage, which is way short of significant national coverage which would be needed for WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 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. Izno (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 1961 (U.S.)[edit]

List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 1961 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this in bulk three years ago with a result of Keep, but I'm still not sure how a list of songs of any length beyond number ones from a minor secondary chart (albeit with a long history) passes WP:LISTN. I believe the type of information these types of list try to impart reached WP:IINFO, doesn't receive coverage in third-party sources, and some info like "Weeks in top ten" are not verifiable outside of looking at every chart week by week and keeping one's own tally. Since the first nomination, top-ten lists of other charts have been deleted, such as:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2013 (January 2018)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top-ten dance singles of 1976 (May 2019)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rolling Stone Top 100 top-ten songs in 2019 (January 2020)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017 (July 2020)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 10 singles in 2017 (New Zealand) (August 2020)

So there seems to be some growing precedence. There are a number of other similar lists that still exist with particularly concerted efforts by individuals to continue and expand the List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles, Lists of UK top-ten singles, and Lists of UK top-ten albums, but those are for another discussion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I'm not a fan of the year-by-year articles of every minor chart, sourced only to the Billboard site, why are we going after these instead of the number one lists? E.g. List of Adult Contemporary top 10 singles in 2012 (U.S.) has a lot more info than List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 2012. If the former are largely non-notable secondary charts, aren't the latter too? Keeping one's own tally of weeks is still perfectly verifiable. Reywas92^Talk 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You have a good point, and I can only say that there simply hasn't been an effort to do so. A discussion would have to take place to agree which lists of number ones are acceptable (Hot 100, UK Singles? Then there's the "if that, why not this" arguments for each country's charts or some genre chart.). That's a bit of an undertaking. I don't know how self-sourcing one's own tally can be verifiable since there is a chance for error like missing a week or miscounting. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This method of analyzing the chart (that is, by date of entry into the top 10) doesn't appear to be particularly useful to fans of the music charts. By contrast, lists of number 1 hits are easier to understand. In addition, I've only reviewed the 1961 page, but it has two major errors: (1) The dates of all the charts are wrong, as Billboard published charts on July 17, 24, 31, August 7, etc., instead of July 22, 29, August 5, 12, etc. (2) Billboard did not have an Adult Contemporary chart in 1961 -- it had an Easy Listening chart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 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 Cambuslang#Education. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Charles' Primary School[edit]

St Charles' Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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