Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 5

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideami

Ideami (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)

Nominating after the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Ideami (2nd nomination). Like that article, this one does not meet notability criteria; I cannot find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GooseUser (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see a lot of dead links, and one potentially independent, reliable source (El País), which lists him as the co-creator of Deconstructed Music and links to a long-defunct website. There wasn't enough coverage to sustain an article about the person and there isn't much about hist studio. I did find some recent coverage: https://www.elcomercio.es/sociedad/ciencia/metodo-torch-javier-ideami-despertar-lado-creativo-cerebro-20190415184052-nt.html which is an interview where he explains his Torch methodology, an "innovation ecosystem". Vexations (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dead links, links that do not lead to actual reviews but to commercial gallery websites. This is basically a promotional puff piece. Not notable. Netherzone (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Article because it's not notable.Forest90 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

C6H3Cl2N

C6H3Cl2N (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)

C6H3Cl2N was created by mistake: chemical formulas of all three compounds are C6H3Cl2NO2. There is no molecule in enwiki with formula C₆H₃Cl₂N. Gyimhu (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All three molecules listed at this page are already listed at C6H3Cl2NO2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as effectively nonsense. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonova engine

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

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

Run-of-the-mill, trivial, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This appears to be a non-notable student project. The only coverage it received seems to have been in the university's paper, as I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Article because it fails
  WP:GNG an also it's not notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the Ox (Rappers)

Year of the Ox (Rappers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see that this group meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The references given are almost all Youtube videos and some Facebook links. Touring as a supporting act for a dozen shows, and recording in legendary studios does not confer notability. They were on a short segment of MTV Asia Raps but to me it seems like a case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This page was recently created. It may be worth giving it a few days. Squeeps10 20:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a clear lack of general notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails
  WP:NWEB.-The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As it was highlighted in the discussion over several Middle-earth lists, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 20:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Isildur

House of Isildur (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 family tree of anecdotal fictional characters has no reliable third party sources asserting notability and so fails to meet the criteria of

• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no reliable sources at all being used to support this information, and I am finding nothing but fan sites and mirrors of this article with additional searches. I am not even sure, in this case, if "House of Isildur" was even a term that was ever actually used in any of Tolkien's books themselves to reference this lineage. Rorshacma (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as The Complete Tolkien Companion, the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia and the The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. Game of Thrones is an absurdly recentist precedent for LotR material as Tolkien came long before Martin and so the stature and scholarship for his work is correspondingly greater. Andrew D. (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the total lack of any outside the fictional universe context dooms this as an unacceptable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous.
• Merge to List of Middle-earth characters Alex-h (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the article with a main article like List of Middle-earth characters.Forest90 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle

Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One of more than a dozen local social organizations in the area for people who use boats. No assertion of notability and no sources to establish it or independent references to verify content. (prod declined, as usual, without explanation) Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's plenty of mentions, both in news and books, but insufficient sigcov coverage to meet
  WP:NORG. No specific redirect target stood out, but I'm open to someone finding a good one. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the Article subject is not notable really.Forest90 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject lacks
  only contributed to this article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus keep but I would prefer renaming the article, since "land drainage" should point to the general topic, not the UK term. Tone 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land drainage

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

)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (selective) to Land Drainage Act. Clearly notable series of legislative acts. As the PTOPIC is not the act, possibly no redirect or move to title with DAB (legal).Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a dictionary definition. The current focus on a particular legal aspect in a particular country seems too narrow for such a broad concept and so it should be globalised. The
  primary topic for this title is the general concept, as detailed in numerous books such as Modern Land Drainage or Land Drainage. Andrew D. (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - a merge may be appropriate, but not to Land Drainage Act as that article is mostly a long list of red-linked statutory instruments. A better option would be to improve the existing article by any editor who has access to internal Environment Agency documentation or has library access to statutory instruments.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:PTOPIC - and Land Drainage Act is an appropriate title + could be developed with prose.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - this is a fairly well known aspect, and there's both sourcing above and other content available, such as the particularly thrilling read of Inter-War Land Drainage and Policy in England and Wales paper. Land Drainage (UK) might be appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Article. Firstly, the article subject is notable. Secondly, the article is not a dictionary definition. As I can see the article just need more expanding.Forest90 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Faulkner

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

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

This article (recently created by a new account that I suspect has COI issues) is currently very short, because most of the content was COPYVIO and has been revdelled. The sources don't establish notability - Montgomerie's autobiography just gives a passing mention, and the Albemarle Gallery is selling his work and so promotional and not independent. The short biography on the National Galleries of Scotland website goes some way to establishing notability, but I couldn't find any other mentions in independent sources - just a lot of profiles on the websites of galleries selling his work (promotional and not independent), and a profile on the Scottish Art Connect website (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment being in the Scottish National Art Gallery collection is a very good of notability. But, as the nom says, there is scant coverage elsewhere.
  talk) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, I agree with that - that's really what prompted me to do a thorough search, since I thought he might be displayed in other notable galleries (

WP:NARTIST calls for several notable galleries to display their work, which I interpret as a minimum of three), but I can't find anything else at all. If I'm honest, I suspect his presence in the National Portrait Gallery (rather than the National Gallery itself) is more to do with the subject of the painting - Colin Montgomerie - than the artist. They have a large collection of paintings of famous people; the artists who created them are not always notable themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. BTW, several for WP:ARTIST is intentionally vague. Might be two, might be three. See the discussion at the top of

talk) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah - OK, I hadn't realised that. That should be clarified really, I just checked a few dictionaries and while some allow for several to mean 'more than one', most definitions seem to agree that it is 'more than two, but not many', which is how I understood that wording. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing here shows he meets the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:TOOSOON, I think. As far as reviews go, I can only find one or two sentences about an exhibition of his in London. We need more than one public gallery holding his works (private collections like banks don't count), or winning prizes. That may come, but for now, delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Per RebeccaGreen above, plus needs more than just the Scottish National Art Gallery exposure. Other relevant gallery coverage appears to be Albemarle Gallery (now combined with Pontone Gallery) which seems to be largely promotional coverage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Forest90 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Frontrunnaz (songwriting and production team)

The Frontrunnaz (songwriting and production team) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Kudos to the nominator for the in-depth investigation of the text and sources in the article. I would also cite violations of
  WP:PROMOTION, but otherwise I can add little to what the nominator has already said. The duo indeed has a few songwriting and production credits with notable people, but they are still a few degrees of separation away from notability for themselves. The article has way too many unsupported claims, and as a distinct entity they have almost no reliable coverage except for brief mentions in publications that are about other people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight Electric

Sunlight Electric (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)

NCORP fail. Tagged for missing refs since 2008. The article is, ahem, a tad bit promotional in its current state, and I cannot find enough sourcing to rescue it from its current advertisement status.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A
  talk) 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Arnor

List of kings of Arnor (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 list is the very definition of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives, none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge to the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The only sources being used here are the Tolkien books themselves, or fansites. I have looked for additional sources to see if there was much talking about the Kings of Arnor as a group that would help establish real world notability, and have found nothing but a couple very brief mentions in Lord of the Rings guidebooks. As there is no sourced content worth merging anywhere, and the article name wouldn't be a particularly useful Redirect, I agree that deletion is the answer here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another list which comes close to being a copy of what is published in a work of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This content brings together information that the curious can't find in a better format.Individual articles on the listed kings might be excess but not the list.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lists of these kings can be found outside Wikipedia here, here, and here.— TAnthony^Talk 03:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list is better than those lists (the third link you offered incidentally has no list at all).12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy everything from here back to the LOTR wiki before this is deleted, as I said they have few restrictions there.— TAnthony^Talk 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely critical correction/clarification I recently added here,was reverted for no good reason there last August when I tried it.(Same at the Tolkien Gateway wiki).12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with
  WP:NOT a indiscriminate source of knowledge. Josalm64rc (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge the article with List of Middle-earth characters.Forest90 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Championship

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Championship (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)

Promotion fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — We were literally nominating this at the same time. Promotion is up for deletion as well. Fails
  WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as
  Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII
  . 01:01, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
  • As explained elsewhere, neither helps to show notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not appear to meet
  WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both promotion and belts fail to meet GNG. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the promotion is deleted under it's AfD, this surely has to follow. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article fails
  WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Tag Team Championship

Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Tag Team Championship (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)

Promotion fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails
  WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as
  Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII
  . 00:43, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
  • WP:PW/RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:GNG criteria. Cordially, MordecaiXLII
      . 08:30, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
      • You need to add significant content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Things like it being mentioned in the news, magazine clippings, or reviews from 3rd parties.
        not everything is suitable for a Wikipedia page.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete - Does not appear to meet
  WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • • • Well I have been defeated. The thought police hath struck again. Hope you managed to get off from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordecaiXLII (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Fails
  WP:GNG. Barca (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - If the promotion is deleted under it's AfD, this has to follow as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article because it fails
  WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Base

Secret Base (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've also nominated: Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Championship and Captain of the Secret Base Openweight Tag Team Championship for deletion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks you beat me to it. StaticVapor message me! 17:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The promotion is notable enough as it is an offspring promotion of the Toryumon System that has been regularly featuring many known veterans of the Japanese independent pro-wrestling scene such as
  Mad Paulie, Men's Teioh, Mototsugu Shimizu, Tetsuhiro Kuroda and even Suzuki-gun member DOUKI for a decade. More independent sources have been provided from Cagematch.net, a website often used in various Wikipedia pages about pro-wrestling promotions or championships. Cordially, MordecaiXLII
  . 00:48, August 6, 2019 (CEST)
  • @
    WP:ROUTINE and therefore cannot support notability. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - Does not appear to meet
  WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - As Galatz pointed out,
  notability is not inherited. This article relies heavily on such and Cage Match can only be used for match results and therefore doesn't prove notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fernandez (TV personality)

Jonathan Fernandez (TV personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

I don't see any indication that this person is notable by our standards – there are some mentions in blog-type sources, but I don't see the sort of in-depth coverage that would justify having a page on him, or indeed enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lack of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction Los Angeles

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

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

A low-budget film that doesn't appear to have been the subject of secondary coverage.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: No significant coverage per
  WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 20:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Anárion

House of Anárion (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 tree is the very definition of

• Keep The "very definition" of the nomination is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Gondor- There is not a single reliable source being used here, and no claim of real world notability. Searching for sources turns up very little outside the text of Tolkien's books themselves. As the topic is on the royal house of Gondor, and they are already mentioned in that article, a redirect there would be useful, but there is no reliably source content here that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such lists are justified for real world ruling houses, although I would point out there are many houses of Majarajas who ruled millions of people at a time that we have far less developed articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination this anachronistic piece of
  creators' own notes, so it's not a Merge but an outright Delete: Unsourced material is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia but thrown in the bin. -The Gnome (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Rohan

List of kings of Rohan (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 list is the very definition of

• Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - There are no sources currently in the article aside from the Tolkien books. This one actually does turn up a few sources upon further searches, but I'm really not finding much outside of plot summaries. Pretty much the only bit I'm finding that discusses the Rohan kings in any way outside plot are a few brief mentions that support the information in the second paragraph of this article (that all of their names were different epithets for rulers) which is not enough to warrant this otherwise unnotable list being kept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when your article has to be sourced to the informational appendix in a fictional book it is too much reflecting the in-universe reality of a fictional work and not drawing broadly on many sources as would need to be done to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous.

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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only (this one even has zero sources!). A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Dale

List of kings of Dale (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 list is the very definition of

• Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - There is not a single reliable source being used here, and I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing this particular fictional lineage outside of a very few brief mentions in plot summaries. Which isn't really surprising considering how minor of a lineage this is, even within the Lord of the Rings itself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article lacks any sources. This lacks any outside the fictional work context at all, listing who played certain roles in film does not save the lack of context issue, especially for an article on a fictional royal lineage. It is unclear that any of these characters beyond Bard are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous.

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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Númenor

List of rulers of Númenor (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 list is the very definition of

• Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources that discuss these characters as a group in any way that is not simply plot summary. Very brief plot summary at that, considering that most of these characters were only featured in the various supplementary works published after Tolkien's death, and are not major characters in the The Lord of the Rings itself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per previous.

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. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Gondor

List of kings of Gondor (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 list is the very definition of

• Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read
  WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about

WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep
  WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps10 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This type of coverage even with little sourcing is justified for real world rulers (although I would point out we have less for many rulers of pre-unification kingdom of places in Nepal, or for the rulers of Kashmir then we have here for a fictional place), it is not justified for background characters most of whom only show up fleetingly in the plot of a book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, 1st, as with many lists, retain only the names that are notable ie. have their own wikiarticle, oh look! it is now tiny and can easily be accommodated in a section at Gondor, so delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous.

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. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Lukacevic

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

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has played in a number of leagues, but doesn't seem to have played enough games to meet criteria #2 in
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the article because it fails
  WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Davison

Wayne Davison (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)

Interesting background to this. It was deleted under CSD A7 and turned into a redirect. At a subsequent XFD for the redirect, the appropriateness of the speedy deletion was questioned, and this article was restored, although with a question mark over whether it should go to AFD. I'm now bringing it here as, although I understand there is a claim to significance in creating unified diff, I can find very few reliable sources to support Wayne Davison's notability. Even when searching along with unidiff/unified diff search terms, I get nothing but a couple of blogs/websites that don't seem to me to rise to the standard of reliable sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are multiple references cited in the article, yet all are offline and difficult to cross check. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails
  WP:NMUSIC etc. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Robinson (civil servant)

Nicholas Robinson (civil servant) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the lack of
  one of several directors at his level at the Transport_Canada#Headquarters. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayalex Ayala

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

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

Promotional article, which was moved out of AfC by the article's creator after having been declined many times. Very poorly sourced with only non-RS, and brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear editor, I am writing to you with the purpose of discussing this article and avoiding its elimination, the article is encyclopedic but lacks references right now, I would like to continue editing the article so that it remains on Wikipedia. I remain attentive of you, RDAP.

RDAPRDAP (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current sourcing is awful (the links to YouTube, Amazon, Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple Music are all meaningless to establish notability) but the problem is that I can't find anything better than that through Google. I don't believe that Dayalex Ayala meets
  conflict of interest problems to boot. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: fails
  WP:CREATIVE. Very likely an autobiography, as noted above, and lacking in true indications of notability. One of the films Mr. Ayala starred in did win a category in a national competition, but it was the film that won, not Mr. Ayala's acting or musical score – the film was written and directed by his college teacher. The only other reliable source in the article, Ultima Hora, doesn't mention Mr. Ayala or his music at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is really nothing approaching an argument for deletion here. Sandstein 20:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexington, Islington

The Lexington, Islington (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)

Notability Tommygs (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC) — Tommygs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is inadequate per
  WP:PRESERVE and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One location, one article, I would say, just as it is covered in sources such as Temple 2008, p. 352 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTemple2008 (help) and Wroth & Wroth 1896, pp. 145–146 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWrothWroth1896 (help). Terrible article. Historical and well-documented location. Be careful about the identification with Busby's Folly, which several sources (including what I cite here) say is an error. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temple, Philip, ed. (2008). "Pentonville Road". Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville. Survey of London. Vol. 47. Yale University Press.
    ISSN 0081-9751
    .
  • Wroth, Warwick William; Wroth, Arthur Edgar (1896). "The Belvidere Tea Gardens, Pentonville Road". The London Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century. New York: Macmillan.
• Keep I don't see any obvious problems with this article. I would note that the Evening Standard highlights this establishment in an article speaking about an issue involving music venues in general, which to me says something about its notability. StonyBrook (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well aside from the fact that the cited source is a pub promoter advertising xyr pub who clearly does not know history, and the construction date and history that xe gives are wrong according to Temple 2008, p. 352 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTemple2008 (help) and others; there's the matter of it being recentist rubbish that gives no mention of a street address that has been two pubs, a tea gardens, a restaurant, and others over 2½ centuries, and instead gives the reader a useless list of recent stage acts. That's what one gets with an article written sourced to pub promotion and entertainment guides instead of history books. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelia Robinson

Angelia Robinson (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 doesn't appear to be a notable musician. I can't find any coverage of her in books, newspapers or elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Angelia Robinson albums and Lessons in Love (Angelia Robinson album) should probably be bundled into this AFD. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Old unsupported PROMO article (part of a larger PROMO garden created by SPA and blocked sock acct), all OR, ORPHAN, etc. Not a borderline case, it seems. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Albert Carlos Bates

Albert Carlos Bates (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 found via a Teahouse post by DiamondRemley39, to which GirthSummit and Gråbergs Gråa Sång answered.

I found nothing online that supports notability in view of

The closest seem to be his membership in the American Antiquarian Society (not in article, but see first external link); however I think that is not enough to meet NACADEMIC #3. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping fix: Girth_Summit. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, I am inclined to agree that he is not notable. I have searched newspapers.com and most of what I see is that he gave a few lectures and his collections were auctioned off after his death. I only found one thing indicative of notability: He received an honorary degree. But it was only a master of arts... though it was in an earlier time and a master of arts may have more clout then. Right now it looks like he hasn't done enough to be considered notable. Thanks for nominating the article,
  talk) 15:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Thanks for the ping Tigraan. I just did a Google search and found quite a few hits. This source includes a short biography of the subject, and explains that his papers are archived in the American Antiquarian Society's Archive Collection, and also says that there is a biography of him in the AAS Newsclipping File, and directs you to AAS Proceedings, vol. 64 (21 April 1954), pp. 8-10, which I assume from the context is another biography. I don't have access to it, but I'd have thought that would all contribute significantly toward notability. He's also discussed in some detail on pp130-131 of The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Volume 38 - Supplement 3. I stopped looking at that point, but there are more hits on a Google - I'm convinced he passes
  WP:GNG based on these sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The AAS Proceedings biography can be found here. He was elected to the Connecticut House of Reps (according to the biography). Does he then pass
    talk) 16:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I wonder what to think of that source. The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science article listed above, about the Connecticut Historical Society, was written by Diana Ross McCain, who, like Bates, worked for the CHS. And Bates is mentioned on two pages and isn't the subject of the article, yet the coverage is more than a trivial passing mention. Just want to make sure that a kosher independent source. --
    talk) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I guess that one could argue that these sources are not fully independent of the subject, since they are written by people belonging to organisations that he was also a member of. However, they're very reliable academic publications, and I don't see any reason to scrutinise them to death - the subject has been dead for 65 years, we're not worried about self-publicity here, and it's clear enough that he was a distinguished scholar in his day - indeed, as the editor of sixteen issues of the Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, he's probably notable under criterion 8 of

WP:GNG. I would be surprised if digging a little deeper into printed records didn't throw up a lot more sources, and I'm satisfied that this is an easy keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And I just checked

WP:NPOLITICIAN. He passes the secondary criterion as having been a member of a legislative body at state level. He's still required to pass the primary criterion, but I can't imagine that he got elected to Connecticut House of Reps without garnering some press coverage along the way - it would just take someone to dig through the press archives of the time to find it. This adds more weight to the notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as per the reliable sources identified above so that
  WP:GNG is passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep, there is not a whole lot here in terms of sources, although, as noted above, formally sufficient to pass
  WP:GNG. For me the deciding factor is that the AAS obituary contains detailed and substantial biographical info. So the article can be expanded to actually look like a reasonable biography. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Copmment If he was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, that would mean we should keep the article. We also should mention this in the article. In my experience even people who were very significant in past legislatures often lack articles, and they often only get articles for very unrelated reasons, the example that comes to mind easiest is Rendell M. Maybe, whose article survives because of his political roles, but I created the article because of his role in establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nigeria and writing a book on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment - switching to keep based on the Conneticut House election / NPOLITICIAN. The sources found by Girth Summit are not enough to my eyes for NACADEMIC or GNG but they are still a reasonable basis to write the article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing my vote to keep due to
  talk) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a member of the
  WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:NPOL has been a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kolanos

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

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a few sentences transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of political figures of Upstate New York

List of political figures of Upstate New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:OR and unsourced listcruft. Highway 89 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment my question on this is the same as in a similar AfD a few days ago. If Upstate New York is notable and the contents of the list are all bluelinked, what is the rationale for deletion? It’s not OR that the individuals listed are from upstate NY, so what’s the urgency in getting rid of this? Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a reason for keeping the list, either. I'd argue that all of the Upstate New York lists are

WP:LISTCRUFT, but for this list the subjectivity of the criteria for inclusion is the main reason why it should be deleted. Its not a list of politicians from Upstate New York (in which case a category would be more appropriate, anyway), but "political figures". Even who is and is not from Upstate New York is disputable, given that there is no clear consensus on where Downstate ends and where Upstate begins. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. Have we reached out to Don Argus jr? Bearian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian I notified Don Argus jr of both AfDs but it appears he is a rather infrequent editor so I am unsure if he will see them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced list, criteria unclear. There must be hundreds if not thousands of notable politicians from that region. Picking the most important ones was likely a
  WP:OR process, and it's unlikely we're going to find an authoritative NPOV independent RS for this sort of a selection. Daß Wölf 03:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A valid disambugiation. If there were only two items, one could sort them with hatnotes, here there are 4. Tone 19:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation)

The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, since it only points to items within the series of the same name. The series article does the same job, better. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per

• As a
  WP:THREEDABS, it's well within the threshold where that can be contained in a hatnote. There aren't so many entries also named "The Legend of Zelda" that is requires a disambiguation page. This is made even more redundant by the fact that they are all in the same series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment How likely would someone searching for it be looking for cartoon series or the manga? I don't think they'd have any trouble finding them if they were looking for them. Pageviews: 1,153 in the past 90 days so someone must be coming here. No shortages of space on Wikipedia. I don't care whether its kept or deleted. Dream Focus 01:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yeah, it has pageviews since it's linked from the top of the Zelda article. Most likely all those people will just close the page once they realize it's a dupe of the series article. It's an active hindrance, not a help._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't see a policy reason to delete: it's assisting navigation to 4 different articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Miracle

Taiwan Miracle (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 does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - No sources? Did you
  actually look? There are hundreds. Try [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Hug^syrup 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I mean in the article. Ythlev (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but, per
  WP:SKCRIT #1, which would probably be the best outcome. Hug^syrup 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, this topic can easily be covered in
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources given above only mentions the term to describe the growth and do not demonstrate that this term is widely used. Ythlev (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok, well, up to you. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but this is clearly not a dictionary entry - it's a highly detailed article about a notable concept that has attracted widespread coverage. The sheer prevalence of the sources, as well as the fact that some comment on the use of the term 'miracle' demonstrate that the term is itself notable and widely used. Anyway, let's let this one run its course and see what the consensus is. Hug^syrup 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a well known term/event in economic history. In addition to Hugsyrup's links, try [14] ( [15] is a graduate thesis, but has citations to numerous studies of the phenomenon), and of course, the Thomas Gold book, a selection of which can be found here. MarginalCost (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MarginalCost's citations. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – As per a source review, the topic passes
  WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Hugsyrup and Northamerica1000 passes
  WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per rationale given above.
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion's been open for a month and both sides are well-argued. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Magnet

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

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to meet all

WP:RS but I spotted at least 4 sources that do, so the correct remedy would be to attach tags to fix references, not deletion. Further, the assertion that it has received contributions from a single editor is not a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Keep. I'd love to see a lot of the promotional language cleaned up

Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. There are a lot of sources, several of which are reliable and independent so notability is there. There is definitely quite a bit of promotional/POV content but that is fixable (and as stated above, this isn't a criteria for deletion anyway). Highway 89 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:BEFORE. Passing mention in anotherBusiness Today and Telegraph India. Trout Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nom's comment: the sources offered above are likewise passing mentions and/or
  WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior High

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

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

The article Warrior High should be deleted due to the fact that it does not meet theWikipedia:Notability policy, and that it does not have numerous sources, with only one source covering it.ShakesPakes (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ShakesPakes (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreeing with SL93, no significant coverage is found. ShakesPakes (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Educational Consortium

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

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

No independent sources in article or found (just a few passing mentions of sports teams). Fails

This is an odd article. It's written as if this were a school, and the organization sort of claims to be a school, but it is not an accredited Kentucky school. The students are all technically home schooled, and the supposed campus at 1500 Alliant Ave, Louisville is actually two days a week of borrowed or rented classroom space at Indiana Wesleyan University. This is an organization which, in effect, provides private tutoring to allow home schooled Christian students to take higher level high school courses that their parents might not be capable of giving them. It also allows them to participate in some group activities such as sports.

I deprodded this 3 months ago pending investigation. I was unable to show its notability (see analysis and sources at Talk:Christian Educational Consortium#What is this group?) and my request for help in finding independent reliable sources to show its notability went unanswered (see Talk:Christian Educational Consortium#Any independent sources about this group?). Meters (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TNT. What is it? A school? An organization? An accrediting body? I can't tell as it's currently written. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Bearian: It's not an accredited school. Two days a week of instruction does not meet the the Kentucky school regulations minimum hours of instructions of "no less than the equivalent of 1062 instructional hours in a minimum of 170 instructional days" to be illegible for accreditation as a private school.^[1] It's definitely not an accreditation body. All of the students are technically home schooled as shown by the boilerplate letter the group provides to the students' parents to send to their local school boards: "This letter is to inform you that we will home school our children, listed below... Our school is located in our home, at the above address."^[2] I don't know what the legal status is in Kentucky, but in a similar situation where I live the government education department simply called the group a private tutoring service for home schooled students. Meters (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This sort of program is roughly comparable to articles for adult folk schools such as John C. Campbell Folk School. This quasi-school includes secondary students and appears to be a feeder for Indiana Wesleyan University. They compete at the secondary level in baseball according to Google News. We presume notability for secondary schools. Although it is not accredited, it's size and association with Indiana Wesleyan University make up for this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is not an accredited school, and even if it were the presumption of notability for schools only goes so far as to exempt them from speedy deletion on notability grounds. Per
    WP:NORG. I was unable to show notability, and I gave it three months for other editors to find sources. If you can provide sources to show its notability that's fine, but your assumption hat it is connected to the University of Indiana Wesleyan is not enough to keep the article. Meters (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Is there a precedent for other large secondary-including co-op type organizations on WP AfD? If not, we may be setting a precedent with what we do with this one--lets get it right. As for their relationship with the university, you could call them up and ask. What is stated in the article is enough to infer what I stated earlier. It seems that most of the team/extracurricular stuff on Google News is behind a paywall so it is difficult to see how in-depth the coverage is. They are not be accredited, but in 2012-2013 they offered five AP classes, which is more than many smaller public US high schools offer. You cannot offer AP classes without jumping though some certification hoops for them--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you're basing your keep on a inference about their relationship with the university (not that I see that affects their notability in any case), and a guess about sources you have not actually seen? RE: precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Sudbury Campus This was a full time, five day a week private tutoring service for home schooled students (including high school students), with permanent teachers on staff and its own "school" premises. Meters (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia's "presumed notable" is not "inherently notable" and is not absolute; it doesn't override
  Notability is not inherited, so an "association" with some other institution is not sufficient, and it seems like the "association" is that they happen to be allowed some rooms in the "Louisville Education and Conference Center", an Indiana Wesleyan satellite office building 3 hours(!) away from campus, in a different state, mostly used for adult education and also "available for use as conference space by area businesses and organizations." (For completeness, even though it should be moot, an analysis about whether this is really a school by any normal definition: Their website claims "school" and "blended education" and "attend traditional academic classes" without explaining what they think would count as any of that. But, as Meters mentions above, when it comes down to dealing with outsiders, this "school" changes its tune: They tell parents to send a letter to the public school board saying that "we will home school our children" and "our school is located in our home" and referring to the parents as "the school administration" for federal law purposes. I can't find any evidence on the website that their graduations or diplomas are recognized, and the word "accreditation" appears in literally only one place on the website, dealing with dual-enrollment classes at the University of Louisville.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dean Dass (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)

Although the subject squeaks by

He appeared in exactly one game that meets the NCRIC guideline and then apparently never did anything else of note in his rather limited "career". He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." It's been 18 years - let's face it, he's not going to play any more cricket, and he's not going to become any more notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - Please familiarize yourself with
  WP:N - it clearly states that an article has to meet either GNG - a random, woolly, POV-biased, guideline - or a subject-specific guideline. You have conclusively claimed your placing on AfD is null and void as soon as you have done it by noting that he, in fact, did play. There is no such thing as "squeaking" past a guideline - and if you wish to alter this guideline yourself in a way that would affect all sports, please suggest how you would do so, or better still, do so in the appropriate places. Bobo. 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - how has it taken you over 11 years to "find" this article and decide it doesn't suit your randomly made up standards, by the way? I'm suspicious. As for our use of the "exhaustively complete" CA database, please indicate to us a secondary source we could use which would fit your liking. Bobo. 08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same way I did—this article is top of the list of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, and clicking on it led me to this AfD. Either way I'm not sure what your "suspicions" have to do with this AfD; you seem to be needlessly personalizing an editorial issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bobo192 is the editor needing familiarisation with WP:N. It says an article is presumed notable if it meets the subject-specific guideline. A presumption is not a guarantee. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a powerful indication of non-notability and suffices to rebut the weak presumption of notability arising from a single first-class appearance. The nomination is valid and correct, and I agree with it. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking. Bobo. 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—

Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use. Bobo. 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles that discuss Dass and his career are an obvious example.—

Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." I've not checked the scorecard, but if, as the article claims, he was a wicketkeeper, then he will have been the most involved player in the game whilst his team was fielding. As to the 11 year gap in the nomination, I'm not aware of any limit on this, particularly for such stubby articles that have no incoming links that someone is unlikely to stumble upon by chance. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up the scorecard, and he took 2 catches and made 2 stumpings as keeper, so he clearly did "really play". Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete - or redirect to a suitable list if it were created (there is no List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players) - I can find passing mentions, but nothing in depth, at Luton Today, Radlett CC, Northants Telegraph and the WH Times. It's possible that articles exist that deal with Dass in a little more depth in the local press - I know, for example, that it's possible to find fairly in depth coverage of Norfolk players, although that would tend to be those who have played much more frequently for the county side than Dass did for Bedfordshire. Given the lack of sources beyond statistical ones (there is also a CricInfo entry with less information than at CricketArchive) and the limited Minor Counties career he had, I'm minded to delete here. Note that I would have no objection to a solely Minor Counties player with substantial coverage in reliable sources being included in the encyclopaedia - there are plenty that I think could be found - and would have no issue with the article being recreated at some point in the future if substantial sources, perhaps from a local Bedfordshire newspaper from 2001, were to be discovered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to suitable list as per BST.
  WP:N states : This [passing notablity guideline] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. I see this as being a suitable case to merge a number of short articles into a longer list of related topics. Category:Bedfordshire cricketers and its sub-cat contains 240 players, though not all of them played List A cricket for them. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with. Bobo. 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass. Spike 'em (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..? Bobo. 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.Spike 'em (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43. Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was reasonable. In cases where there are lots and lots of apps in minor counties matches there may be more of a case for a stand alone article, depending on sources. At the same time, there may be people with 2 or 3 LA apps who played few other matches and about whom we only have limited biographical information who might be better off being redirected. But those can be dealt with as required.

Any chance that you could create the list at some point? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV? Bobo. 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Notability is a matter of judgement, not something which is always black or white. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that to be the case it's proof of how pathetic this project has become. If we're not working to black-and-white criteria, there is no point ever creating articles. Bobo. 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, which Bedfordshire cricketers who have not made List A appearances would be allowed under this rule? Bobo. 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, but I know that there are two Norfolk cricketers with more than 100 minor counties appearances who never played a FC, LA or T20 match. I think there's a chance that I may be able to find enough sources about both in the EDP archives and other sources Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While we're complaining about the lack of or suitability of certain sources and/or external links, and pulling out random guidelines from nowhere, can someone please fix all the Test cricketers with zero references or external links? (There are seven alone in Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers, as a milestone). Not an attack by the way - this is a problem which has been around for at least the 15 years since I've been a member here. I'm just guessing that these Test cricketers attract more traffic than others. Bobo. 03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just hope we do not get some of the editors who have commented on the most recent Kennedy article up for deletion, since there it was argued that existing for 15 years should default an article to notability. I guess some people do not realize that 15 years ago the article creation process was less controlled than it is now, and Wikipedia has never had enough people doing deep research to monitor new articles. The article creation process we have now with submissions for creation helps, but since we do not require people to go that route, we get lots of submissions that do not come close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to articles like this which do..? Bobo. 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he meets the cricket notability guidelines they are clearly flawed. We should be able to know more information about someone who played so recently. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is inclusion of articles on clearly non-notable sports people who have never received any significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To say "there is a problem" when we are going to be, once again, unable to fix the problem, is a worthless and time-wasting process. Bobo. 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets WP:CRIN by playing at the highest domestic level. Those who go through the same routine of attempting to force through change on CRIC A). Don't even contribute to the project. B). Have no idea about cricket. The project already reached a consensus to delete articles on players where only their initials were known, resulting in the deletion of hundreds of articles. StickyWicket (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, as I have stated above, the article title was under initials only for a year and a half before this information was added to CA. Where was everyone back then to complain..? If this individual had reached CRIN for the first time today, even if only his initials were available, this conversation would not be happening... Bobo. 08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]