Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 10 December	12 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 a consensus among participating editors that there was significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to justify notability. While I did not fully examine it, my brief look into allegations of

canvassing did not indicate anything improper or which would otherwise prevent this AfD from being closed with a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Lightning Network

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

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

Reason: There is a problem with

notability of the subject: the citations in the article refer to self-published texts that are not acceptable for notability. Other sources found also do not qualify as significant coverage by sources independent on the subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Bitcoin Lightning Network might be a better name; but I think that the Lightning Network is sufficiently notable for WP. It's fair to say that it's one of the most important initiatives in the Bitcoin ecosystem and seems to be the only viable path for Bitcoin to be used as a retail/mobile payment system (as opposed to a transaction settlement system or a digital asset). JimD (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nah, it was designed to work with other coins, e.g. Litecoin, and even has a cross-chain payment system (even if it's clunky and exploitable) - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Network can be used for payment channels and value transfer with a wide variety of cryptocurrencies (or even without cryptocurrencies potentially as demonstrated by a recent chat app Whatsat). It would not make sense to label it as "bitcoin" even though that is its primary use case currently (just as the "World Wide Web" is not "the Internet"). Litecoin is actively tested as well for example. – JonathanCross (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can this link do as not self-published? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/technology-meant-to-make-bitcoin-money-again-is-going-live-today . knocte (talk) 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 23:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment Dredging for mainstream press coverage, I find these articles that are substantially or entirely about Lightning: FT [1][2], Bloomberg [3][4], Wired [5], Ars Technica [6] - there's likely more - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I find it difficult to take seriously almost any press coverage of lightening, bitcoin, or cryptocurrency in general. Our articles are even worse most of the time. The Bob and Carol explanation in Lightning is among the better examples and still laughable. I'd prefer to get rid of the whole lot - ultimately it looks like many people are having the wool pulled over their eyes by a few crooks who claim the impossible. There's no reason for Wikipedia to get involved at all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Network is functional today and can be used to buy things. The suggestion that hundreds of professionals and academics working on this are somehow "crooks who claim the impossible" is both factually incorrect and inappropriate here in this discussion about notability of the subject. – JonathanCross (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment If it doesn't deserve its own article, it is surely notable enough within the sphere of Bitcoin to be a section in the Bitcoin article? —ajf (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - combine all the crypto etc. articles into 3 mega articles. That would be better for everybody involved. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With crypto articles, we've been tending to need them to show that anyone cares outside the crypto bubble - so, mainstream press sources or peer-reviewed academic sources are required for notability. Could we write an article from what I listed there? Maybe. Is it evidence of sufficient notability? Not sure, which is why I just provided the list - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(As a note, David Gerard is a recognized expert in the field of crypto currency, so he should hopefully weigh in on this. I really think that he would agree with me that Lightning Network is notable in the context of Bitcoin even if it is not a good system). Michepman (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This just means I have more sources ;-) I think it might well be, otoh the mainstream coverage is "gosh this is a thing isn't it!" and "but it doesn't work very well does it" - which may indicate notability, but won't give us so much to work with - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I feel like this subject could get adequately covered as part of a broader article on consensusless decenteralized payment systems, but considering that lightning is the only such system with even moderately wide deployment and that there aren't a lot of secondary sources on the broader idea... that gets in the way of covering it that way. There are a lot of bit-rotten obscure cryptocurrency articles that should probably be removed[7] and if I were to rank them, I'd put lightning near the bottom of a list. As was pointed out above, lightning isn't Bitcoin specific but could be used with a multitude of systems that provide a small number of properties (in the case of centeralized systems, it could even potentially be used without the operators' knowledge). Covering it as part of a bitcoin article wouldn't really work, as a result.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmaxwell: normally we dont remove old dead subjects. They are useful from a historic perspective. Also think your suggestion of a broader article would be nice, maybe we can do that when there are some other similar networks up on ethereum, etc. Or maybe they will later all be referred to as lightning, if that becomes the common name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure-- not merely for being dead. But when a subject is active and on the border of notability wikipedia sometimes leans toward keeping it around and seeing what happens. But if a subject has gone cold historical perspective can make the lack of interest more clear than it was in realtime. Regardless, lightning is very much not dead. My only point there was that effort debating the boundary of cryptocurrency notability would be better spent on things that weren't close to obvious keeps. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. FYI, this nomination probably resulted from a discussion we were having over at Talk:Bitcoin#Lightning_Network where this AFD nominator also appears to have deleted the lightning content from the Bitcoin article as well. Sad/laughable, but we we deal with here at wikipedia, if you dont like it, then delete it... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is clearly notable within the field of cryptocurrency as one of the main protocols underlying
WP:AFD to punish articles for not being well written. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Frivolous nomination. Meets
WP:GNG with sources from Bloomberg, Fortune (magazine), FT Alphaville, Daily Express, Ars Technica, Wired (magazine), Andreas Antonopoulos's books, etc. A lot of hits in google books as well [8]. Silly nomination really, probably should be withdrawn. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment yay, press coverage! I've put {{Not a ballot}} up top accordingly. Best way to get the Lightning article kept is to fill it with quality sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Good catch. I hope that we don't get brigaded. I don't think that this article should be deleted but the discussion should stay focused on facts and sources rather than brigade attacks on the nominator. Michepman (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also deleted lightning network content (with

WP:RS's) from various other articles under discussion Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Lightning_content and Talk:Bitcoin#Lightning_Network, its not only this nomination. Interesting that these discussions result in news articles, but we haven't an influx of comments, so maybe few people read these crypto news articles anyhow and a good thing they are no longer used as sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - In addition to what User:Jtbobwaysf has said about sources, I think this subject has enough notability as a data structure alone. The subject potentially applies to several chains (not just Bitcoin), and we have to remember that this is a process that could even be done on a pen and paper if need be. It is also not purely abstract - the subject is far enough along to use at industrial scale (with great care). As such, not only is it notable enough to keep, but it is notable enough as a standalone page within the scope of cryptocurrency, and maybe even more broadly within the study of all of computer science. – Kjerish (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Lightning Network is the most important and most advanced "second layer" cryptocurrency project, mainly related to Bitcoin but not only. Several teams from different parts of the world (Lightning Labs, Blockstream, Acinq, etc.) are working collaboratively to elaborate the LN standard (BOLTS). I can't even imagine how it could have been suggested for deletion. Fmably (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A WP:BEFORE was needed and required. Passes
WP:GNG with RS from Bloomberg, Fortune (magazine) etc. Lightburst (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - As stated earlier, there's clear examples of press coverage outside of the cryptocurrency / bitcoin space demonstrating basic notability of the subject. The article quality clearly could be improved, but neither that, nor a personal bias against cryptocurrencies in general seem like appropriate grounds for deletion. The Lightning Network itself is novel and a beneficial addition to Wikipedia IMO. – JonathanCross (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
looks like it should be kept. My main comment is that I hope this doesn’t meet the (temporary) fate of the
GNAA article which was repeatedly put up for deletion, kept, and through sheer attrition was deleted... and then it recreated and stays here to this day. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The Lightning Network conceptual design started back in 2013 and has had the perpetual promise of being ready for production in "18 months" going on now for close to 7 years. Lightning Network is nothing more than vapourware and this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ミラ P 02:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. If you look here, the nom has canvassed several people to this discussion. I've reverted most of them per
WP:DENY. ミラ P 02:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Canvassing allegation

@Miraclepine: You stated above you removed AfD notices from many user's talk pages. I find this inappropriate. FYI, I guess Ladislav Mecir knew well I would vote keep (and he was a delete vote as the nominator), so I am not sure how pinging me (someone who he can assume will vote against his proposal) is canvassing. He can assume this as Ladislav and I were discussing lightning content (from opposite sides of the fence) at Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Lightning_content the same day he created this AfD. I believe that pinging involved editors on an AfD nomination is correct protocol and I have done it myself in the past. If I have put this sub-section in the wrong area, an admin can feel free to move it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Najran shelling

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

WP:NOTNEWS, recently some articles like 2019 East–West Pipeline attack were deleted so I think this one is also NOTNEWS SharabSalam (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this is a routine murderous attack in that region of the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is better to merge it into
2019 Najran attack.Saff V. (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Saff V., this is not related to the 2019 attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of that article :) --Saff V. (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:GNG If every attack of this scale occurring during every conflict in history had its own page half of wiki would be nothing but such reports. castorbailey (talk) 04:19, 18 December 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 and redirect to Tabu Taid. RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabu ram Taid

)

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article completely lacks proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AfD is not cleanup. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment as it stands, which is a
WP:SIGCOV, including an obituary in The Telegraph, a leading Indian newspaper. Can this be saved? Bearian (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note. It's a copy of [[Tabu Taid]] ! That looks like vandalism to me, so I suggest speedy deletion and a redirect created from Tabu Ram Taid. Genium . 12:35, Dec 16, 2019 (UTC)
delete and redirect notable subject, but a fork (and almost a copy) of Tabu Taid. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to Tabu Taid. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 18 December 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Tollbridge Technologies

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

Subject not notable. Tollbridge was an early implementer of VoIP, but fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. I located coverage, but it consists of name mentions or investor reports only. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does this nomination stand re
WP:NOTTEMPORARY? If they were notable at one point, and being early providers of a significant technology would indicate this, then they stay notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There were several early providers, and articles I found listing Tollbridge as such also listed several other comapanies alongside them. Many of the financial press items I found were from the time the company was still in operation. I think it's safe to assume that if there was other media coverage of the company, it would also be showing up in a search. That said, in spite of my efforts to be thorough, I've been mistaken about a lack of coverage before. I encourage you or anyone else interested in this discussion to conduct their own research. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Brown (editor). Content remains in the history for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage Times

)

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

Shortlived and not very notable website Rathfelder (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet
long-term significance. SITH (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to James Brown (editor) as a significant part of his career. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the person who started the article,
WP:SIGCOV about the website's inception. However I do think it is telling that there is there is no corresponding "sig cov" - at least that I can find - about its demise. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, worth a mention at author article. ValarianB (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knotice

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

Minor digital marketing company, fails notability. Also created by

WP:SPA -- likely COI/Paid work. Loksmythe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is some coverage of this small company, but a search online finds that it might have been bought out. Am I wrong? Please ping me if you find anything substantial. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator's assessment of the situation looks spot on and thus I endorse the deletion. 04:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gormenghast (castle)

)

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

This article fails to establish notability. Most of the last section seems to be OR unless I'm reading it incorrectly. The only thing in the section that isn't is just a minor blurb about the inspiration for the entire setting, which is rather trivial. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gormenghast (series), move that to Gormenghast. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the last paragraph to Gormenghast (series)#Setting. All the rest is OR or in-universe trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFICTION Lightburst (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Piecuch

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

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event She won a single contest that had like 10 people in it. NE Ent 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least until Miss Universe has finished. If she wins, more sources will arise for the topic. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just realised that Miss Universe already happened, the article hadn't been updated and that is my reason for deletion. Barely current. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usual arguments. scope_creep^Talk 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a
thinly sourced attack. She didn't place in the top 20, and I thought we got rid of such articles. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burçin Başar

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

Non-notable artist. No sources to fulfill GNG. Of those listed, none are independent of the subject, they being just trivial listings in galleries, etc. PK650 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in English, I can only see Saatchi, artfacts, Facebook and other trivial or wiki-style sources.
talk) 22:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The only thing of note is the award, 2019 Creative Armenia-AGBU fellowship. None of the sources are relevant: commercial gallery listings, social media, a blog. Could not find anything else online. Maybe in a few years if she gets some significant coverage, but now it's WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think she is notable but there is insufficient coverage to satisfy policy. I don't see any major museums holding her work or some really decent secondary sources are not there Her work is really good. It has that kind out of focus organic landscapes look, that is hard to get a handle on. Only a matter of time. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
artist who hasn't exhibited in any art capital, except perhaps one exhibit at a Saachi gallery (but poorly sourced). Bearian (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Bearian, the difference between Saatchi Gallery and Saatchi Art is substantial and rather crucial when it comes to notability. Exposure on Saatchi Art is something anyone can get, and exhibition in the Saatchi Gallery on the other hand is a very big deal. Vexations (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, Vexations. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate on the two Saatchi's, if I recall correctly Saatchi art was started by a disgruntled Saatchi Gallery employee, and the Gallery is not so happy about that. There is a world of difference, the gallery being extremely reputable, and the spinoff being a wiki-style web site.

talk) 22:17, 16 December 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. The deletion argument is not quite established and a little more time is no bad thing in a marginal case like this. If there is no improvement in 6m time than another afd might reach a stronger conclusion.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Francesca Verones

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

2nd nomination. As painful as it is to say, she fails WP:ACADEMIC as it stands right now. Probably too soon. Under 2,000 citations and associate professor just does not cut it. Not enough independent coverage to merit inclusion under GNG either. PK650 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Three publications with over 100 citations each make a borderline case for
WP:PROF#C1, and the Laudise medal makes a borderline case for #C2 (borderline because although it is international and not a student award, it is aimed at younger researchers). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I lament to say her high citation number for those articles is probably due to her colleagues Mark A. J. Huijbregts and Manuele Margni. "Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators" we could consider, yes; but then again, that would be the one article. As for Laudise, how can we gauge its relevance? I think it would in fact cement the notion of TOOSOON, being for efforts by a researcher under 36 years, i.e. a sort of "nudge, keep doing this work and you might make it" sort of award. PK650 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even if there wasn't an issue with the citations being a bit of a
talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I think if it is borderline and the case cant be made and there is consensus that is probably
WP:PROF with no doubt.scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree she will likely become notable in the near future, with a few more journal articles under her belt and another recognition/post. PK650 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also agree this is likely a
talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:PROF. They are both Wikipedia guidelines. Why do you think the one that is not about professors should take priority over the one that does? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I never said anything like that. This doesn't satisfy either
    talk) 17:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Weak keep per
WP:PROF criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. I follow
WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that an influential review article is still a contribution to academic thought, just as an influential textbook would be. They codify how scholars think of the history of their subject; they help draw the line between remembered and forgotten. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't discount it entirely, and I'll strike out that part of what I wrote as unfair. My point is that I don't think that a review article with 17 authors and a moderate-for-a-review-article number of citations much helps demonstrate notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large number of coauthors on published papers does not allow assessment of the independent contributions of this early career researcher in a high cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl of Peace EV

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

Evidently non-notable "pet". Only source found is from the Daily Mail, which is obviously disregarded. The other one is a New Zealand blog post, both from 2013. PK650 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this "influential pet on social media" meets
WP:GNG, and like humans, he does not acquire notability from having famous relatives. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails GNG ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at this a couple of times, couldn't make up my mind, but now. Fails
WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 16 December 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. Deleting both. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Farm Names in Oppland

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NOTDIR and no navigational purpose whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable
WP:RAWDATA; also applies to List of Farm Names in Østfold. The author has commented at Talk:List of Farm Names in Oppland but I don't see a place for this even in the municipality articles, within each of those it's still massive lists of farms without independent coverage. Users interested in genealogy can be directed to the source data at [9] and [10]. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

To the nominator feel free to add the Østfold article to this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A pointless list of names. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've added the following page to this nom: ミラ P 02:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far too indiscriminate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate and non-adequate sources. No significance.
Message; Contribs) 02:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails to show notability. Fails to show a purpose to be included in Wikipedia. Mburrell (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This surely rises to snow delete. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Rajan

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

Won a non-notable beauty pageant. Has featured in films, but only in minor roles. The Daily Nation citation is a passing reference. Net Worth Post is worth as much as all such sites are, i.e. nothing. A search turned up the usual social media sites, and this interview, which is not

WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable as neither an actress nor beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Lots of name drops, self bios and profiles. Not a lot. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" is just a vote. Sandstein 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligencia (comics)

)

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

Non-notable fictional group. TTN (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The current article, as it stands, is made up only of primary sourced plot information, and should not be retained. Searching for sources actually does bring up a couple of mentions in some non-primary books, but these are extremely passing mentions that do little more than say the group's name. Not enough, I don't believe, the meet the
WP:GNG as a standalone article. If someone wanted to add a line for their entry in the suggested merge target describing what they are, I would not be overly opposed, but none of the currently text really need to be retained to do that. Rorshacma (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Online Complaint Management System

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

Reliable sourcing about the titled topic seems minimal to non-existent, I find no evidence that this passes

talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find sources to help. 70.240.207.189 (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monsters Unleashed (comics). History is available if editors believe there is content that should be merged. RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Kaiju

)

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

This article fails to establish notability. The three articles are simply covering the introduction of the character without any commentary. The rest of the sources are primary. There is nothing to pass

WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters Unleashed (comics). BOZ (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: There is enough material here to make the character notable. Combined with the fact that he has appeared in other media.Voicebox64 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established through
suitable real world information. This article is lacking in that. TTN (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K#Kid Kaiju or Monsters Unleashed (comics). I conducted several internet searches and couldn't scrape together enough reliable secondary coverage to meet GNG. All I was able to find were press releases, non-independent articles hosted on Marvel websites, speculative "first look" type features, and mere mentions in more reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. There are some brief overviews in news sources, but no analysis or evidence of impact beyond 'look at the new superhero'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Monsters Unleashed (comics). Lightburst (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:GNG. As a suitable target exists, it can be used as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pathologist (band)

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

A Czech goregrind band. They have a similar case as Neurovisceral Exhumation: they had multiple albums, but I did not found any site that discusses the band's history, only databases that can be edited by anyone (https://www.google.com/search?q=pathologist+band&oq=patho&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0l2j69i60l2.1740j0j4&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8). They don't have an article on the Czech Wikipedia either. I checked Google if I can find anything notable about the band but I only found databases (Metal Archives, Discogs, Metal Storm) that does not make notability for the article. The rest of the search pages were pages with the word "pathologist" that has no relation to the band at all. This means there are no reliable sources that makes this group notable, so I think they are not notable to be in Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found an interview with the band and a paper from Masaryk University mentioning the band, both in Czech. I can use them to expand the article if it's enough (haven't find anything more yet). --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 20:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interview could be good, but if that paper just mentions the band, it does not qualify as a reliable source. And I think one source is not enough to make an article notable.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources. If that interview would be added to the page, I think that wouldn't help either since the other sources are MySpace (not independent from the band and does not indicate any reliability) and a site called Bandzone.cz (that seems like it can be edited by anyone, and it does not even contain Pathologist's history). Also, the article's notability has been questioned since 2008.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with GhostDestroyer100. Plenty of due diligence has been done to find notable sources with no luck. KailuaKid (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That paper is about the history of grindcore and its related genres in Czech. It is interesting but it is not about Pathologist; it just mentions the band (like you said). So I uphold my opinion.

Comment This nomination was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough information about it in
WP:RS. Doesn't pass our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

97th Floor

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

Non notable marketing company, no coverage despite their fairly common name. Also likely UPE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources present in the article do not demonstrate notability, as they consist entirely of brief mentions (some in lists, e.g. a brief mention in a top 50 list is not significant coverage) and unreliable sources with either promotional language or user-generated content (reviews). I haven't found any outside sources that would satisfy
WP:NCORP. Additionally, the article does not have any substantial encyclopedic content (or anything suggesting that such sources may exist), and what it has is verging on advertising, akin to the review sites in the references. Hence, delete as a non-notable company. ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
possibly spam. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 13 December 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Gurukul Vidyapeeth Institute of Engineering & Technology, Banur

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

Closed, fails

WP:NORG Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 11 December 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sollen

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

A Hungarian metal band. They only released two demos and an EP, despite being active since 2001. I thought Wikipedia is a place for bands which have already released an album. Sollen did not. The article has also been deleted from Hungarian Wikipedia twice: once in 2013 (in fact, this article was written by the same user who created the Hungarian version), and in 2019, the article was deleted the second time (this time it was written by me). The reasons for deletion were unreliable sources. This is the case for the English article too: I checked the sources. Their official site is not independent from them, "LD.hu" is a trivial site, "Rockerek.hu" can be edited by anyone and it repeats the same biography that can be found on numerous other sites that are about Sollen (https://www.google.com/search?q=sollen+zenekar&oq=sollen+zenekar&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.3882j0j4&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1) Three of the sources (Passzio.hu, Blackmetal.hu and Holnaphulla.hu) are not even available, and the last source (the review on their 2006 demo) can be considered the only source that indicates notability - although I'm not that sure about that either. So I think Sollen is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{
WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 11 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Lee (Connecticut)

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

Lee was a town warden for one year. This is not a position that implies notability. The sourcing is run of the mill, and in many ways the article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are other wardens of Norwalk we have articles on. One example is
George S. Gregory, where the only sources on the document at US census records. There are many more articles here that need to be nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; can't find anything that looks like it constitutes
significant coverage. The only source I could find which could is this paper which I cannot access. Can't find anything in any newspaper archive that I can access. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 17:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Being warden of a town that had a population of just 17K in his time, and even today is still below 100K, is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because he existed, but the referencing here is one short biographical blurb in a book and three
primary source genealogical documents. So the book is fine, but not enough to get him over NPOL #2 (where the bar is "significant press coverage") all by itself if it's the only reliable source you can show, and the FamilySearch documents aren't support for notability at all. When it comes to making local politicians notable enough for inclusion here, the test is the ability to write substantive information about their political career: their impact on the city's development, specific projects they supported, and on and so forth — the ability to locate his birthdate and the name of his wife are not notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 12 December 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Banbouk Music

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

Non notable DJ who fails

WP:BIO Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technoriti

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

(AfD caused by PROD mistake) This article gives itself no evidence of notability, and searching for Technoriti does not bring up any coverage at all for me, leading me to believe it is a non-notable topic. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of
event notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 12 December 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. Clear consensus not news applies and this argument has only been opposed by assertion. We can redo this if enduring impact is shown to be The case later on.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2019 Gabriola Island crash

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

Small plane crashes are very common and unless there is someone Wikipedia notable killed in it are they notable with only rare exceptions. There is nothing in this article to say otherwise.

WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Currently the article has enough sources to confer notability. There is definitely a question of whether such notability will end up lasting, or whether it will be temporary. But, opening an AFD on the article before that answer is clear is premature in my eyes. This article isn't hurting the encyclopedia, nor is it a blight on the site (as it is perfectly sourced as of yet). So, per
are not a paper encyclopedia I don't see a need to wait until such notability is fully established to write an article... deletion is pretty easy if it's found necessary later on). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Amended to remove redundant language. [11] — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further note This has been covered in a myriad of reliable sources, including but not limited to Reuters, Canadian Press, Times Columnist, The New York Times, Yahoo News, CBC News, and Global News. Such coverage fully establishes notability per the
WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. A few sources did report things before having full official confirmation, but that is to be expected with any news outlet today (and those unconfirmed facts are not in the article as of yet). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Small plane crashes are very common. There are hundreds of them every year. Here are one [12], two[13], three[14], four[15], five[16] recent examples. All of which were picked up by a major media outlet. That it has been reported, all routinely, doesn't make it notable. The grandson, have you heard of
WP:NOTINHERITED? Without someone notable on board, this is just another small plane crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, and Comment: Notability is not about notable people, it is about having sufficient sources (noted by sources: notable) see
WP:NOTE; that there can be found to cite and support the article, it is not about the the famousness of the people, nor the content of the article -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree with Coffee, this AfD seems premature. This is a significantly covered event with 22 sources and counting, including major news sources. ~riley (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – that's such a common occurrence. Of course newspapers will cover it (and indeed the article as it is now reads like a news item), but this event is as worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia as any car accident with fatalities, or indeed any fatal light aircraft crash. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The original justification for deletion is incoherent and written with poor grammar. If the statement does not meet guidelines it should be disregarded.ThirdTransition (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:GNG-based exemption from having to meet the significance test, either, because initial news reportage of the crash will always exist for every plane crash whether it's of enduring significance or not — so to make this notable enough for an encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is not "sources exist", but "the sources are already demonstrating a reason why this is of enduring importance", and these sources are not showing that. Is it sad, yes, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We don't even have a standalone article about the twin-engine Cessna crash that killed Jim Prentice, but just write about it in Prentice's biographical article — so the fact that the deceased pilot had a notable grandfather hardly makes this more notable than that. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A common type of plane crash that fails
WP:NEWSEVENT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the local newspaper-- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: For every reason Coffee said, especially the part that this AfD is premature and can be done in a month or so if nothing notable shows up. Since this article is so new, how do you even know where this is going? I'm sure no one likes their new creation to be stomped on right away (or ever). Note that the creator of the page (TheSandDoctor) is an Administrator AND a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, so you would think that he knows the Wikipedia guidelines. @WilliamJE, you might want to add an AfD notice to that project at [17]. Normal Op (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles pending what might become true in the future; we wait until those things have become true before we start the article. (By the same token, we don't keep articles about as yet unelected candidates for political office during the election campaign on the grounds that they might win the election in the end — we wait until they have won the election before we start their articles.) Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal Op: Worth noting here too that this shouldn't be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because it was not an AfC submission. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A run-of-the-mill accident with no demonstrated lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coffee, I believe this AfD also to be premature. The article has significant coverage from enough
notability. While it is true that plane crashes are common and do get local coverage, it is not very often that they get coverage from across the nation (Toronto etc) and internationally...on the other side of the continent - some 4900km away - in The New York Times within 24 hours, nonetheless. The NYT doesn't normally write about small plane crashes in another country. Combine this with the fact that The Canadian Press (Canada's version of the Associated Press) started covering this within 4 hours, it reinforces my initial assessment that the notability requirements were met. I will note, to the benefit of WilliamJE, that The New York Times had not yet published its article on this at the time of nomination. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- @
  WP:TOOSOON also....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Not all current events are recentism, besides the point that the link you used says directly at the top "this page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". So please stop using it like it is one. Additionally, you clearly need to read
    WP:NTEMP. I just did and as such updated my original comment here, as it reads once something has been covered as notable, that state of notability does not change even if that coverage doesn't continue. So, in fact my position is now further towards keeping this than it was before. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete
WP:AIRCRASH elevated to policy.--Petebutt (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Zero notability is more than a little hyperbolic. I think it's also ironic that we're here pointing to things that aren't policies and claiming that they are already the current consensus, simply because they should be according to some people. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergolic??? Are you expecting it to spontaneously combust?? I can't believe you used the Rabbit's ears. LOL. Why mention it when I already had said it was not policy, running scared?--Petebutt (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He never said “hypergolic”, Petebutt. Hyperbolic does not have anything to do with spontaneous combustion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Light airplane accidents like this happen by the thousands worldwide each year, and almost all result in no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved - no changes to regulations, no
WP:SENSATIONAL, but they are not encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per nom and Ahunt's comments. We can't have a stand alone article for every aircraft accident. - Samf4u (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no one has suggested that every crash should have an article. That also isn't a reason for deletion. Bookscale (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no one has suggested a reason why this crash would qualify as a special case, either. If you don't think every twin engine Piper or Cessna crash is inherently notable, then you do need to show a compelling reason why this crash is of special notability over and above most others — because absent a credible reason why this crash should be a special notability case, keeping it automatically means we would have to keep an article about every crash that happens at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're wrong, Bearcat. You assess each individual article based on coverage and sources as the notability criteria says. This one meets the criteria, most others will clearly not do so. Bookscale (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm not wrong. Every plane crash always gets some degree of media coverage — so if the sole criterion for the notability of a small twin-engine plane crash is "sources exist", then every plane crash always clears that bar. And if you're not claiming that this one is notable just because "sources exist", but that there's some higher notability bar it's surpassing beyond the mere existence of the media coverage that every plane crash can always show, then you haven't said what that higher notability bar is. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you are wrong. This article has more than routine coverage and has reliable sources. That meets the GNG standard set by Wikipedia. It doesn't need any more than that, there is no "standard" for aeroplane crashes that needs to be met if it meets the general notability guideline. Bookscale (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Every single plane crash that happens at all can always show some sources, because every single plane crash that happens at all will always get reported as news somewhere. I am not wrong about that, it's a 100 per cent correct statement about the way the world works: plane crashes get reported as news. Which is precisely why we have a longstanding consensus that we do not want to retain an article about every single plane crash that happens at all; we only want to retain articles about plane crashes that pass the
        ten year test for significance, by having had an enduring impact. The standard is not just "plane crash that has sources", because no plane crash ever doesn't have sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Keep per Coffee and in good faith to the creator of the article. Article meets GNG, and coverage does not seem to be limited at this stage. Bookscale (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has enough
WP:RS to demonstrate notability. Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Every airplane crash that happens at all would always have enough

WP:RS to demonstrate notability if "the article has sources" were the only test we applied. I'll grant that jet airliner crashes are virtually always justifiable article topics — but twin engine light aircraft crashes need to show more than just the existence of sources: namely a reason why the crash was of uniquely enduring importance significantly greater than the hundreds of other twin engine light aircraft crashes that happen every year. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That was my point above. Due to press sensationalism every airplane crash gets at least some press coverage, but that is why we have a policy exactly against including this,

WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Light aircraft crashes happen every day and most have no enduring effects beyond the deaths involved, no changes in procedures, no changes to the aircraft design through airworthiness directives and so on. They are the same as car accidents, bus accidents, train accidents, bicycle accidents, boating accidents, etc. Many of those get some press coverage too, but no one would suggest we have an article on, say, each bicycle accident. They are just "news reporting" and not suitable for an encyclopedia, exactly because there are in general, no lasting effects. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

reliable sources and saying the article has sources. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Reliable sources are the kind of sources I was talking about. Your distinction doesn't actually change a damn thing — every plane crash that happens at all always gets reported as news, which means that every plane crash that happens at all can always show "enough reliable sources" to get over GNG if "sources exist" is the only notability bar they have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bearcat and Ahunt's comments through the AfD. Routine reportage of a minor aviation incident around the time of the incident is a primary source and is not indicative of enduring encyclopedic notability. Secondary sources after the fact are necessary to prove the claim of encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what a primary source is, according to
  WP:PRIMARY. Not even the article on primary sources explains it with such reasoning, unless we were to interpret these sources as being written by the witnesses of the crash (which they weren't) or only being written at the time of the crash (which they haven't been, as even just over the past 48 hours more reliable sources [CBC, Vancouver Sun, and Global News & CTV News] covered the story again). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Actually I think you can absolutely make the case that news reporting about a current or very recent event is primary. Per
    WP:PRIMARY - "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that much news reporting immediately during and after an event falls into the first category, while it is the later editorials, columns, and follow-up pieces that fall into the second and that really serve to establish notability. Hug^syrup 13:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep The idea that due to the article being in poor shape the subject is non-notable is silly. It's a notable accident. Ultimograph5 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable on what grounds? Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates it is of note as it is just one of thousands of light aircraft crashes, sad to those involved but no encyclopedic interest. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As always with news events that are tragic, unusual or interesting - and especially plane crashes - they generate enough short-term and/or local press coverage to make it appear as if they pass the GNG. This is precisely why
WP:EVENTCRIT lays down additional requirements such as 'enduring significance' or 'widespread impact...and also re-analyzed afterwards'. 'Routine kinds of news events ... whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable'. Tragic but unremarkable crashes of GA and other small aircraft are exactly the type of event intended to be excluded by this criteria. Hug^syrup 13:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Several editors here apparently have a
  WP:LASTING specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. It has not been weeks or months, in fact it hasn't even been a full week yet since the accident transpired. If you are determining something is "unremarkable" within a few days of it happening, it is you who is misinterpreting policy, not the author of this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  It doesn’t require a crystal ball to tell me that the crash of a small aircraft, an event of which there are sadly hundreds a year, is not going to have a lasting impact. We can, and should, take a common sense approach to these things or else we would be creating an article for every single news event just on the off-chance it proved notable in a few months’ time. Hug^syrup 07:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  The
  false dichotomy, as this topic was covered by a litany of sources that don't cover "every single news event" and as such it can be entirely common sense to cover this article but to still not cover everything ever released in the news. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Comment- You've got this wrong — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // . I've been involved/seen dozens of deletion discussions on aircraft accidents just like this non notable example. None of them survived. IMHO the only reason this discussion is so long and your here is because an administrator created this article (no disrespect meant to TheSandDoctor). - Samf4u (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Another administrator, MilborneOne, is strongly in favor of deletion. MO has done a great deal of aviation accident work. Me, the person who started this AFD, has created 4 dozen aviation crash articles give or take one or two. If the weighing of aviation accident Résumés is being done, far too much weight is being given to the wrong side....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  It in no way matters what userrights each person leaving their opinion here has, nor does it matter what articles each person has created or not. No administrator speaks for us all, and no one editor makes a consensus. These are forms of argument from authority which are fallacious as our only accepted authority in deletion discussions is the community's established policies and guidelines. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Please do not use my signature in your reply. That is bad form. If you need to ping me, use the {{
  unacceptable behavior). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  The fact that your "signature" is long and complex is your problem not mine. You are so over your skis on this you can't even rebuttal the crux of my argument. This accident is not notable but you continue to badger anyone who disagrees with you. - Samf4u (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @
  signature forgery). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  
  That's interesting, I wasn't aware replying was considered badgering now. That's quite the paradox of a statement you have there too, because you apparently wanted me to reply to some "crux" of an argument you had... (which if I may point out was simply another fallacious use of an appeal to authority, as your observations of previous discussions do not make a consensus) yet at the same time are implying I shouldn't respond at all. I will also note that my replies to others in this discussion have been about entirely different points. I am not just sitting around repeating myself again and again. So, please... quit with the misrepresentations. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:LASTING. No enduring notability or lasting effect, this much is clear already barring some outlandish conspiracy. There is no point retaining articles about routine events if there is no realistic chance of them becoming non-routine. ----Pontificalibus 14:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Notability of a dead slug. Fails
WP:AIRCRASH--Petebutt (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Petebutt: I have struck the bolded part of your comment because you already !voted above. Mz7 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Old-timers rushing in fast. Or is it rushing out fast?LOL--Petebutt (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly: I would not even have bothered writing this article as it is obviously of no use to Wikipedia! Secondly : IF I HAD written it, I would expect it to be, at best, AfD'd, as is the case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Private plane crashes are relatively common and because of the small size of such planes the number of fatalities is also low. If a lasting impact emerges, then the article could be recreated. Brandmeister^talk 22:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as
WP:EVENT ie. "... lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

WP:ATD. If anything is sourced it remains in the history and can be merged appropriately to Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Elisabeth Meinhart

)

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

This fictional topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten. Finally a character I know. She appeared in over 4500 episodes (18 years) in the most successful German daily soap, so I certainly expect that there is significant coverage to write a Good Article on her. But even the German wikipedia sees it sufficient to summarize her in three lines. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to
Clemens Richter, also redirects. —Kusma (t·c) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user who deprodded this article @
WP:BEFORE. ミラ P 23:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NFICTION Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to WP:ATD and a character which, while not independently notable, is capable of sufficient sourcing to provide useful information. Hug^syrup 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten. Interested editors can pull more material from the page history for a merger, but be aware that there is currently no sourced info. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Höfer

Philip Höfer (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 fictional topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who deprodded this article @
WP:BEFORE. ミラ P 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

He'll simply go on an unrelated rant about me. Though there is realistically only so much you can do with topics that originate in other languages. German Wikipedia has no character articles from this series, not even one described by a German user as "this might be THEEE best known daily soap character in Germany apart from "Helga Beimer" of Lindenstraße." If sources exist, they certainly aren't casually abundant from a cursory search. TTN (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, the German Wikipedia is useless for judging notability of fictional characters, they are an extremely mergist lot and don't even have a standalone article about, say, Darth Vader. —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN and Kusma: dewiki doesn't seem to have anything equivalent to GNG, otherwise anyone can translate Darth Vader's enwiki article, which has on "creation and development" and "cultural impact", into German to put it into dewiki. ミラ P

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten. Or just boldly redirect if you think there is nothing to merge. Can't see a good reason why this needs an AFD, really. —Kusma (t·c) 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Roddy

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

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails
talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - He does not appear to meet the
WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Never had a top tier fight so he fails
WP:GNG. There's also no evidence of notability as a martial artist ("BJJ practioner" in the article). Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Gustavo (fighter)

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

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails
talk) 14:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - He does not appear to meet
WP:MMABIO as Rizin Fighting Federation, the organization for which he fights, is not a top-tier organization. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 13 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adhiti Menon

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 page does not comply with the Wikipedia's notability guidelines and henceforth be deemed to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneStoneDigital (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see nominator's talk page and article talk page. Subject is client of nominator and no longer finds this article convenient.-- Deep fried okra 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is clearly not so notable we need an article on her if she does not want an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the five sources cited does much to establish the subject as notable (the best is no. 3, with two part-sentences about her). The subject's views, and those of her now-blocked agent, are irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is a public figure who has
WP:AFD. There are many more sources that could be used that are not in the article, a quick google search will show; A kidnapping allegation from India Glitz, a brief mention regarding a trailer for a film she was in, a marriage controversy in India Times, a review from India Times for a movie she was in (breifly mentioned) --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete India actor at the very beginning of her career. Two minor roles and some minor coverage for the current film, but nothing else. The usual standard announcements that are visible when new Bollywood film starts filming. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON.scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies. Tone 13:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fenris Wolf (Marvel Comics)

Fenris Wolf (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. The two sources confirming the character's existence in the film are trivial. The only one with any real world information discusses the CG development of the character, which is both primary information and ultimately something too in-depth for a general article on the character. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fancruft that fails
WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies. I see no reason information from this article can't end up improving this list, as oppose to its current, free standing form. Ryan shell (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies as above. There actually are a few reliable sources for this, but it's borderline, and it's likely we won't see many more after the movie. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies per BOZ. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 17:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Thor (Marvel Comics) enemies Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 13 December 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 13:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Magro

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

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

Article about a person that fails
WP:TOOSOON for now. Lapablo (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the only film you have appeared in we have an article on involves you with the role of "confused gaurd" you are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Montgomery-Cuninghame baronets. Tone 13:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame 8th Baronet

Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame 8th Baronet (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)

Nothing evident to suggest this individual satisfies WP:GNG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mutt Lunker, I see a lot of subscription-required sources cited in the article. Did you review these? FOARP (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. As far as I can see they wouldn't shed any useful light as they all reference matters that would not indicate notability, including non-notable actions or appointments or the existence of relatives, all but one having no indication of notability either (even were being related to someone of note satisfactory for one's own notability). Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was creating a stub for others to expand on. To be honest, I am such a novice and will remain so, it has taken me ages to even find this. The 1851 Census shows him as living at 68 Eaton Place London and his occupation was Baronet with the 1861 Census showing him at 39 Princes Gate occupation Baronet. Entry in Probate Register, Baronet if that helps. But again, all subscription entry. I'll have to go back to his grandson's (Thomas Andrew Alexander Montgomery-Cuninghame) book (Dusty Measures) to see whether there is any mention in there. JCTilley(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in Dusty Measure, nor in London to Tokyo (Sir John Tilley m. to TMC's granddaughter) JCTilley (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I approached it "there is a page listing the Baronets and so it would be good to have a link to a page covering him" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery-Cuninghame_baronets Just a different logic. If he still doesn't fit the criteria then he doesn't fit the criteria and he will need to be deleted. JCTilley (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage of this man? For example, were they news stories about him? If there was nothing of this nature, just mentions of his name, then I am inclined to vote Delete. Census information is not significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

FOARP - No, not significant. I haven't been able to dig up that much on him at all to be fair. The Census was to show he was a Baronet in line with my thinking of the Wiki page Montogmery-Cuningham_baronets. JCTilley (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or alternatively Redirect to
WP:CHEAP)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage
. Recommended for deletion.

Redirect to the baronets page per
original research. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

'Redirect as suggested. This is a well researched article about a person of minimal notability. Neither being bart nor DL nor Lieut-Col provides notability; nor do these in combination do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in British Newspaper archive suggests that he was a Lieut-Col only 1850-1852. He would have continued to be called colonel after retiring, so that the 1856 reference is in an sense anachronistic but only implying he currently held the command. This reinforces my view that he was NN. Thisn contrasts with his son and successor who was notable as having a VC, the highest award fro bravery. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not worthy of a redirect, as the article should be, by our naming conventions, either
Sir Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame, 8th Baronet (which is already a redirect) or Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame. The current title is not a correct one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 18 December 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. Both the keep and delete side cited
WP:SPINOFF, regardless of notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Xanth characters

List of Xanth characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Long list of utterly non-notable characters from a fictional universe. Fails
WP:NFICTION. This kind of stuff belongs on a fan wikia (https://xanth.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Xanth_characters) not on Wikipedia. Not a single source I see in BEFORE suggests that characters from this series had been analyzed in scholarly works, or that this list appears in any place that satisfies LISTN; all that I see is the wikia list and even worse (reliability-wise) fan sites. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable series have always had character lists as a spin off articles. If that is to change there should be a discussion somewhere and not arguments in thousands of different AFDs. And some of these characters are quite notable as they are the main characters of some of the books. Dream Focus 10:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- virtually zero sourcing on content presented in a mostly in-universe plot summary style. The article consists entirely of trivial fancruft. There is no decent sourced content to merge, and the actual major characters are already covered in sufficient detail (and in a better manner) at the articles for the respective books. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...at the articles for the respective books". And that's exactly the point of having separate character lists for series or franchises, so readers can see that information summarized together in one place rather than having to piece it together themselves. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Describing this immense, sprawling wad of unsourced cruft a "summary" seems perverse to me. Summarisation implies brevity. This is cruft for the sake of cruft. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, justifiable at minimum as a
WP:SPLIT from the parent article. This series comprises 42 books, we do our readers a disservice and hinder our coverage by removing such indices. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Character lists shouldn't be instantly made without first having proper articles for the rest of the series. It's a cop out because nobody actually tries to fit the information properly, so we just end up with bloated messes filled with trivial one time characters and other nonsense. The supposed context yielded from them is lost because everything else is so unweildly. It's not that it's a valid split because there are forty two novels, but rather that there are forty two novels in which to discuss the plot and characters relevant to those novels. From there, the main article can easily hold some primary characters. I don't view this as a content clean up issue, but rather a good TNT to get things straight. 20:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@
Gotrek and Felix and Iron Man: Sound Effects? ミラ P 01:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per nom. Meets
WP:LISTN per Lists that fulfill recognized informational [...] or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. ミラ P 01:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clear and obvious fancruft that fails
WP:LISTN hard. I fail to see the "navigation" purposes the list fulfills that would grant it implied notability, as it does not link to any sub articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, it's a
WP:DEADEND, so the argument that it helps with navigation is hard to justify. Unless it's supposed to be the end result of a search, but then we go back to the issue of this not passing GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've changed my vote to clarify things better. ミラ P 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:LISTN some of these characters are notable and appear as main characters. Wm335td (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury. CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Akankwasa

Frank Akankwasa (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)

As suggested by
WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Has not played in any matches that meet
WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable youth player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recreate if he makes his List A debut in the tournament. StickyWicket (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Similar to this discussion. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete
WP:G5 sock of SheryOfficial (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 14 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VSI-Mebli

VSI-Mebli (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 claim to any notability. Fails
WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources. --Yakudza (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lego Star Wars. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lego Star Wars sets

List of Lego Star Wars sets (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)

Just a catalogue of lego sets, supported by fansites as sources. No notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a lot lego sites get reviews in the news media. [19] [20] and other reliable sources give them significant coverage. Just Google news search for "lego" and "Star Wars" and you can find a lot of places to sort through. Some of the sets could have their own articles based on the coverage they get. Things on the list could have references added to reliable sources giving them significant coverage. But that'd be a lot of work and I doubt anyone wants to bother with it. Dream Focus 20:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestion is rebutted by
WP:NOTCATALOG Criteria #5: "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." You'd have to show something more than just a product reviews how I interpret that. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NOTCATALOG. Lego Star Wars is where the notability is, it doesn't trickle down to individual playsets. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Lego_Star_Wars#Lego_sets. I entirely agree with the nominator and the comments above by ValarianB, but there seems to be a sensible enough target for redirection, and the potential to list any particularly significant sets at that location. I don't think a merge outcome is justified though as there is so little worth saving from the List article. Hug^syrup 11:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:OTHERWIKIS that are better for these sorts of product catalogues (Brickipedia in this case). Yosemiter (talk) 14:15, 18 December 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 13:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lego City sets

List of Lego City sets (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)

Just a catalogue of lego sets, supported by fansites as sources. No notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTCATALOG. Lego City is where the notability is, it doesn't trickle down to individual playsets. ValarianB (talk) 18:36, 12 December 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Albert H. Clark

Albert H. Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Not notable unfortunately and WP is not a memorial Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets
WP:SOLDIER. Jamesallain85 14:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC) His submarine on his last patrol sank the Sakito Maru, which wiped out more than ⅔ of the Imperial Japanese 18th Infantry Regiment. He was also well decorated, while not with the Navy Cross, his awards looked it in context speaks to his notoriety. He one of only two commanders of the USS Trout, and it is my opinion that he meets the burden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs
)
Which of the 8 criteria specified in SOLDIER do you think that satisfies? He didn't receive the Medal of Honor or multiple Navy Crosses (1); the sinking of Sakito Maru wasn't a significant event (4); and Trout wasn't a capital ship (5). Mztourist (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is eliminating the best part of a regiment not significant? TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although the sinking caused thousands of deaths, resulting in the sinking of the ship commanded by the subject of this AfD, it is not a significant battle in the
WP:EVENT, then write that article, and then argue that this article should become a redirect to that article per BIO1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
He meets the standards of SOLDIER "It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable per the guidance set out in the WP:GNG due to the level of coverage he has received in reliable sources." I have listed several sources and can list more if needed. How much notoriety must one achieve?

Delete does not meet any of the actual soldier notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets
WP:SOLDIER#4 The article should be developed with sources. Wm335td (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; subject of article does not meet
it won't be on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:09, 12 December 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. WP:SNOW
(non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Qatar T10 League

Qatar T10 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough for separate article. Fails
WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage, and as it's being broadcast live internationally it seems to have sufficient real world notability. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I'd undo the splitting of
2019 Qatar T10 League into its own article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; plenty of significant coverage, but I agree with Spike 'em that the season article should be merged back in. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources. Pass GNG.
talk) 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The league certainly looks like GNG material although I'm not sure if that would extend to the individual franchises. The majority of players listed in the rosters appear to be notable. I agree that that the season article should not be separate yet – that could be done in a few years time if the tournament becomes established. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 11 December 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. The support for keeping (with the assertion that sourcing in the article has been improved over the discussion) is equal to the support for all other solutions combined. Since the purpose of this discussion is solely to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, I find that there is no prejudice against the immediate initiation of an effort to merge this content into another suitable article. BD2412 T 05:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Big Bad

Articles for deletion/Big Bad (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Big Bad (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Big Bad Brucie

Articles for deletion/Big Bad Mouse

Articles for deletion/Big Bad Wolf (Shrek)

Big Bad (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 evidence this fictional term passes
WP:SURPRISE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This term is too widely used at least in discussions of works to support its coverage is such a narrow way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a complaint about the quality of the article rather than an objection to the article itself;
AfD is not cleanup. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; seems like a decently sourced article about a concept that has a big role in Buffy and that is used elsewhere. Clearly a term of art in
Buffyology, and clearly the the subject of some academic attention; I came across a published paper called "The Big Bad and the Big 'Aha'" in a recent collection from Lexington, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:NOTDICT and per nom. A pure dicdef mixed with fancruft. I love TVTropes, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Everything is sourced to scholarly analysis. If we're dismissing scholarly analysis as "fancruft", we're in trouble. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we say everything is notable just because it had a brief mention in a scholarly analysis, we're in trouble. C wut I did thar?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you did "thar". If you think you're describing my view, you're mistaken. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination says that "Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works" and so the main problem seems to be
WP:DICDEF
aspect. The point of that policy is not that we should delete anything but that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." So, it is instructive to see how many titles we have for this concept. Let's start with:

Antagonist

Adversary

Archenemy

Bad guy

Bad Wolf

Big Bad Wolf

Black hat

Boss (video gaming)

Enemy

Mr Big

Supervillain

It appears that we don't actually want all these related topics crushed together and, even if we did, the result is unlikely to be stable and so we'd better keep all the history in case we need to unpick it. Deletion would be disruptive in such circumstances and so is best avoided per
WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Setting aside that you linked a disambig and a TV show episode name, a lot of those can be justified to be different concepts in literary theory or other topics (real world crime, video game design theory, etc.). Whereas Big Bad is nothing but a plausible redirect to one of those (or the disambig at adversary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I would suggest you retract the needless personal attack The nomination says that "Prior AfDs (2007, 2011) were closed as keep because the term is used in some scholarly works" and so the main problem seems to be WP:IDHT. Yes, the nom is wrong on this point, but in the opposite way to how you claim: 2007 was closed as "no consensus" with a small majority in favour of deleting/merging, and 2011 was closed by a non-admin (now a blocked sockpuppeteer) as "keep" despite there only being three "keep" !votes, one "keep/merge" !vote, two "delete"s and one "undecided" (apparently leaning delete) -- clearly "no consensus" at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [21] [22] [23] and other reliable sources do use the expression. Dream Focus 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICTDEF usage example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (where the last paragraph of #Characters already mentions this concept) or List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings (which needs decruftifying, but might have a future). Scholars seem to focus on BTVS only for this topic, so better cover it in one of the show's main articles rather than getting rid of it completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - It should be redirected somewhere, maybe a sentence added to Antagonist and redirected to Buffy as the main usage? The MTV article is the only in-depth analysis. Otherwise, it's just passing mentions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Andrew Davidson. This term as defined in the bare-bones
WP:DICDEF article we have at present is synonymous (read: redundant) with antagonist, which is the only context I've ever heard it used in and the only sense defined in our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I would also be happy with a merge I was
assuming StrayBolt's claim that the antagonist article is generally inferior to this one, I would be happy this article's content replacing that one and a new lead paragraph being created. But the two are obviously synonymous and redundant, and "Big Bad" is still somewhat slang-y (apparently totally dismissed by the compilers of Merriam-Webster) so "Antagonist" is clearly the better of the two titles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Antagonist per TTN. Most of the sources are either passing mentions of the phrase, or just uses of the phrase without any kind of explanation or analysis. The fact that this neologism has essentially entered modern language as a synonym for an antagonist means that it should be mentioned on that page, but there is really not enough substantial coverage that would justify it being its own article. TTN's suggestion of adding some brief information on its usage to the Antagonist page and citing Buffy as its origin seems to be the most sensible solution. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have added sources with explanation and analysis. Have even seen 2 college theses (not PhD) on the subject. Many popular RS websites use it without mentioning Buffy. Passes
WP:GNG. It is not a synonym of antagonist. An antagonist is not necessarily a Big Bad. StrayBolt (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It still seems to be mostly passing mentions. This would easily fit under Antagonist's "Types" section. They are a type of antagonist. TTN (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvement during AfD. Thank you Straybolt. Regarding
WP:NOTDICT claims, see also: Antihero, Low-life, Black sheep. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The new additions don't convince me, they feel very much like
WP:SYNTH. The articles use the term "Big Bads" but don't actually discuss the term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not an article solely (or even primarily) about the term "Big Bad"; it us about the use, purpose, practice (etc.) of Big Bads in Buffy and other programmes. It's pretty clear that the articles cited (and others) discuss/explore this. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously
WP:SYNTH._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not obvious at all - more, I think it's wrong, even silly. Do you think our articles on hero or damsel in distress should be only about the term? We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It's striking that you think that this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but when content is added to move it beyond a definition, you insist the article "very much should" be about the term, rather than the concept. Between the snide comments and the apparently shifting goalposts, my ability to assume good faith is seeping away. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone looked at the sources at antagonist? Seems like more than half are just dictionary definitions, one looks like a homework assignment for students to cut-and-paste together a glossary. Some go to other pages than originally listed. Could one of the Redirect editors or someone fix that page first? I would expect better for the literary term. StrayBolt (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS. It is perfectly acceptable to believe the two topics are redundant with each other and !vote based on which title would be better, regardless of the current state of either one of the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Coincidentally, the MW def for "bad" uses "big bad" as a recent example: "The fam has to work together to fight the film's big bad, a villain known as The Taskmaster." — Abby Gardner, Glamour, "The First Trailer for Marvel Studios’ Black Widow Is Finally Here," 3 Dec. 2019 StrayBolt (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, that example conflicts with the definition given in our article -- Taskmaster can't be a season-ending villain in a TV show when Black Widow is a movie and he/she/it has never been mentioned in any of the prior movies (let alone the fact that if Black Widow is anything like any of the other Marvel spy-type movies so far, the trailer's implied primary antagonist will actually be either a
not actually in the movie all that much and really a puppet of a secret villain not portrayed as such in the trailer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
When I posted it, I thought someone would have gone with, "Ironically, that example shows it is not an atomic term because 'big' is an adjective." That example does prefix it, "the film's big bad" but you say the sentence is wrong on many levels. I haven't reached a conclusion on its usage with films (more on your other post). I haven't updated the definition with what I have found. Also, language, definitions, and usage are always a little fuzzy. People will stretch meanings of popular terms, like big data. StrayBolt (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the sentence is wrong on any level. It might be (probably is?) wrong on a factual level, but on a grammatical/syntactical/semantic level it makes perfect sense. "Big bad" is quite a common synonym for "antagonist". That being said, having looked at it more closely, Webster is most definitely wrong to cite it as an example of "bad" as an "adjective", and even the "noun" senses Webster gives don't really fit. Perhaps they consider "big bad" as we use it, and as Gardner uses it, to be a non-standard slang abbreviation of "big bad guy", wherein "bad" is an adjective. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recent improvements from StrayBolt are excellent. The article now steps beyond both plot summary and dictionary definition, and the wide range of sources display notability. Meanwhile, some legitimate questions have been raised about a possible redirect target. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any substantial improvement to the article, nor anything that removes the implied redundancy. It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so. I have seen this phrase used as a synonym for "antagonist" in dozens of video essays and entertainment news pieces, and I see no reason to believe it is particularly associated with the academic field of Buffyology or that in that context it has some special meaning meriting a separate article. Conversely, one rarely hears of the primary antagonists of season-long story arcs of similar shows like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. being referred to specifically as "big bads" (yes, sources do exist, but it's much more common to simply use it as a descriptor for a one-off antagonist in a film, even one who is the primary antagonist in one of a series of films and is never mentioned again. Even if a source can be found that says Whedon or one of the other creative forces behind Buffy coined the term (the article currently makes this claim, but there is no citation, and the following sentence is attributed to Durand in a manner that implies it bears no relation to the preceding sentence), that would still only be
one of the synonyms of "antagonist". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, there are sources for the news search for "John Garrett" "big bad", I get 22. For "John Garrett" "antagonist", I get 28. Small difference, not rarely hears. And there were a few usages in articles already. An appropriate analogy for "big bad" in films would be a supervillian across multiple films like Thanos or Palpatine or Sauron. Your search for Ultron is getting many hits because there is much buzz/speculation as to who will replace Thanos as MCU's "big bad". Do you object to MTV News citation, "Discover The Secret Origin Of TV's 'Big Bad'"? StrayBolt (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, are you talking to me? You say "It seems very much like you and a number of the other "keep" !voters were unfamiliar with this term (never heard of it?) before coming to this AFD and assuming that the term must not be synonymous with "antagonist" because our article said so". I had definitely come across (and used) the phrase "big bad" before seeing this AfD, and I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. And I wouldn't (didn't, don't) think "Big Bad" is synonymous with "antagonist". It strikes me as more specific - all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads. All this is by-the-by, of course; I think we should keep the article because of the existence of decent sources, not because of my own beliefs or (non-)familiarity with the term. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I say you seem unfamiliar with the term because you take the article's word that it is specifically associated with Buffy. It may have originated with that show, but nowadays this is certainly not the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed the all big bads are antagonists, not all antagonists are big bads bit -- yeah, that's correct, and I apologize for blurring the line on that point. That being said, it's quite common to have a single article on a [broad topic] like antagonist that covers both "major" or "primary" antagonists ("big bads") and lesser antagonists together. The fact that "big bad" is still somewhat
WP:SLANG-y to the point that even Merriam-Webster is apparently unfamiliar with it and cites its usage as one of "bad" as an adjective rather than as an independent term means we should give priority to the more widely-known and formal term. If you think that the antagonist article is too long and detailed and we should split it into articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists ... well, you're wrong, since the current text of Antagonist falls significantly short of 1,000 words. Maybe at some point in the future that will be the case and a discussion can be had about breaking the article into two articles on "primary" and "secondary" antagonists (though probably not with the titles "Big Bad" and "little bad"). The existence of sources that use this wording is frankly irrelevant, since it is essentially synonymous with the more formal "primary antagonist" and "major antagonist" and no one is saying that the concept that lies behind all these different words is not notable. (It would, however, be OR to take the neologism "Big Bad" and write an article under that title based on all the thousands of sources that use different words while implying that Joss Whedon created this concept that has since been retro-fitted onto hundreds of other fictional works.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not taken the article's word for anything. I agree that "it's quite common to have a single article on a
bullshitting...). An Encyclopedia of Buffyology would surely have an entry, were one published. And I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Though your "vote" was for a redirect - have you changed your mind? My !vote was for redirect for the simple reason that the present title should redirect to the more commonly-known, established and formal title, without any judgement on which article's current or potential future content was superior or worth keeping. I am not a fan of either article in their present state, and I do think the onus is on the editors currently !voting "keep" to (for example) add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy, either now or after this discussion closes (assuming the result is either "keep" or "no consensus"). I hear you on OR worries, but, again, that sounds like an editorial concern, and not a reason to support deletion. Well, I don't think anyone here believes the page wouldn't at least make a worthwhile redirect, so there's no point arguing that editorial concerns over what in the article should be kept are not a matter for AFD; can you and I at least agree that the content would be just as at home in an article titled either
primary antagonist, perhaps under a section heading in one of those articles entitled "Big Bad"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
add a source specifically verifying that the term "Big Bad" originates with the creators of Buffy That was the first thing I added, days ago. The MTV News article says "they all have an over-arching, season long villain that showrunners -- and characters -- like to call the Big Bad...can all be traced back to one show: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."... writer and former showrunner Marti Noxon...it was a little harder to remember the exact moment of origin...I would say Joss came up with that on his own...it's an expression Noxon recalled was bandied about the writers room long before the characters themselves started using the phrase on television…." Most of the sources have more details than I've added to the article. For a short def from me, it would be, "season-long archvillain" (but
archvillain is a redirect). Another def has said "evil and powerful adversary". I think the def has been stretched some with usage/time, but antagonist is too general. StrayBolt (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Example text I was referring to the statement in the preceding paragraph, currently not attributed to any source, at least from appearances, that the term originates with the creators of Buffy. The statement that the first instance the phrase was used in the show itself was in Episode A is a separate matter. It's quite late here, so I have no inclination to check at the moment, but does that source also verify the statement that I was referring to? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
fact}} tag to the article or remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge perhaps to List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings. A term for some of the major villains but I'm not seeing in the sources enough that this warrants a separate article as a concept of its own. Reywas92^Talk 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list has about zero notability, though. It would definitely not survive an AfD, IMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is very dictionary-like, but remember other terms like Antihero have their own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: "Antihero" is an established word that has been in use since the 17th century, though; the present article is largely redundant with antagonist (which if it were a more filled-out article would probably be primarily about "big bads") and is named for a slang-esque word that our article claims only goes back to the 1990s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: That's one of the reasons why it's just a weak keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Villain. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of days have passed since somebody commented on here, and nobody can agree on anything. Is this just gonna close as No Consensus? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the improvements made to this article since the AFD are quite impressive and help establish sufficient
notability to warrant it be kept. — Hunter Kahn 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:HEY. Seems to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note Many of the above keep !votes are based on
the Heymann Standard, but they seem to assume, without any regard for the ongoing discussion in this AFD itself, that the newly added content is an improvement and didn't actually make the article's problems worse. The opening sentence of StrayBolt's newly added "On other television series" section is texbtbook OR, and anyone saying that the article should now be kept because it includes unsourced (or dubiously sourced) policy-violating material should probably have their !votes disregarded accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What you are saying is far from clear. Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? Can I advise you stop making assumptions about everyone else? I really didn't appreciate your assumptions about me above (which, I did my best to explain, were inaccurate - inaccurate is a polite word) and I suspect "[m]any of the above keep !vote[r]s" won't appreciate your assumptions and insinuations about them. If your arguments are so clearly compelling, why don't you let them speak for themselves? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can let the closing admin make the call about what people's views are based on and what is "textbook OR"? I have never once, in fourteen years editing Wikipedia, seen a sliver of evidence that all or even most AFD closers -- even in HEY cases -- go to the article and do source-check before finding out if the HEY !votes are valid. Technically, they are allowed
assume
that such !votes are valid unless someone points out on the AFD that they are not. My doing so is perfectly valid, and I don't appreciate your trying to silence me.

As for who is !voting for what reason: I will let the "keep" !voters speak for themselves, and of the two keep !votes in the last eight days, one of them explicitly cited HEY and the other explicitly cited "the improvements made to this article since the AFD [was opened]".

BTW, your apparent poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH, which you expressed in your responses to Zxcvbnm further up this discussion, is very unbecoming of an admin. I'm not sure if it would be worse to be sincerely unaware of such problems or to pretend as much so you can "win" this debate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you are saying the first sentence of that section is OR. Citing sources that happen to use the phrase Big Bad in reference to the recently expanding trend for genre TV shows to have season-long story arcs as demonstrating that "the use of Big Bads has become common in TV science fiction and fantasy series" is textbook OR. What has become common is the use of season-long (or multi-season) story arcs, and those arcs having primary antagonists is practically a given. Both sources say the trend is the BB, not "season-long story arcs", so my sentence matches the sources. I was trying to summarize this paragraph: Following Buffy, Big Bads were suddenly de rigueur for all TV sci-fi and fantasy series… And because the RS said it was a trend, I liked to include another supportive source and I thought this paragraph matched: While some narrative franchises… recent trend… seasonal antagonist… "Big Bad" There is no
WP:SYNTH, just "A and A therefore A." Therefore, the maintenance template should be removed. StrayBolt (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Hijiri88: I am perfectly aware of what "our policy on SYNTH" is, and I did not display a misunderstanding of it. All I said was that this is not an article about a term, but about a concept. Whatever my opinion on the current status of the article, I stand by that. "BTW", If you want to talk about unbecoming behaviour, perhaps we could talk about responding to a recommendation that you tone down the snide accusations with a flurry of snide accusations? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let's be clear about this. What I said above was that it was not obvious that the article "very much should be about the term, because otherwise it is obviously
WP:SYNTH". And you think that this shows that I have a "poor understanding of our policy on SYNTH" (or am pretending that I do in bad faith)? That's ludicrous. Or are you referring to something else that I said? Either back up what you're saying or retract it. (Bonus points if you manage to do either without accusing someone else of incompetence or acting in bad faith.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 20 December 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. Very poor discussion with no examination of the notability problems, hence not a "keep". Renomination or merging as per S Marshall appear like good ways forward to me. Sandstein 21:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloward–Piven strategy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cloward-Piven Strategy

Cloward–Piven strategy (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 subject of this article has not been the subject of
WP:COATRACK that's been used for over a decade to prop up an incoherent right-wing conspiracy theory. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to
WP:PRESERVE situation here.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This article needs to remain. I understand some people like to call it "conspiracy theory", because some Pundits/TalkingHeads like to make connections to this strategy but the fact still remains that the strategy did exist and was in fact published in a major publication back in 1966. [1] The two authors were PHD's who educated and influenced young people for over four decades and helped bring about major legislation and political action. So in that context a published work by the couple is relevant. And it's especially relevant since it has been referenced by so many other sources in recent history regardless of the opinion some people have of those sources. I might point out that to this day in 2019, many people still say Wikipedia is not a "reliable" source. So do we want to make that true by simply removing history because we don't like what some people think about? Immto (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty

Keep Essentially, this. Whether or not one feels that the strategy was a 'incoherent far-right conspiracy theory' is, of course, one's prerogative. Denying the existence of the strategy itself is wholly different. The reality is that Cloward and Piven did in fact evolve and put forward a strategy that was intended to stress the existing social welfare networks in order to drive reforms of their desire. This is not an assertion, it's a fact that is supported by a primary source and was clearly laid out within said source. The article as it currently stands is supported by multiple direct quotations by Cloward and Piven. If you believe that there are countervailing viewpoints, those should be properly sourced and addressed in the Reception and Criticism section. Arkanor (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of that have to do with notability (our standard for determining whether a given topic ought to be the subject of a Wikipedia article), though? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could refer to the previous discussion from 11 years ago, the last time that someone tried to ram through a deletion of this article. Plenty of sources from within both the current article and that discussion are sufficient in my mind to establish notability. On a slightly different note I took the liberty of adding bullets to break up comments and bold text to the start of all initial replies to more clearly illustrate people's votes. Arkanor (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article needs improvements, but i dont see a clear case for deletion.
talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with Arms & Hearts that there has been sufficient discussion over the decades to make this notable.WidenerStacks (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tilion

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

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

Non-notable fictional character. Doesn't have real-world influence as a figure and lacks enough in-universe significance to be notable as a concept. Article lacks even primary sources, and no secondary RS appear to exist. Note: also the name of a brewery, so Google searches will need to be sifted through closely. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (also ok with soft delete and redirect, maybe to
Tolkien Encyclopedia (he is just mentioned few times in passing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Another minor character in The Silmarillion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Maia (Middle-earth). Probably doesn't need a standalone article, but I see no value in deleting information when it can be merged elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is someone only mentioned in the underdeveloped early stages of a work. Not all named characters are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tilion is an obscure character who has not received any substantial coverage from reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Shivalik colony

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

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

No real content; only one, dead, source; tone is talking about how "nice" and "beautiful" it is. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
focused on such hot topics as a new business opening in the neighborhood. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Malviya Nagar (Delhi).----Pontificalibus 14:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though this AfD was created using Twinkle, the creator of this article was not notified. I did it later. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
WP:GEOLAND it is already mentioned at the much larger neighbourhood of Malviya Nagar (Delhi) which is enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 21 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X-Statix

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

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

Fictional character(s) / group that fails
WP:NFICTION. There is proposed merge but no rationale, and as usual the content is PLOT+list of appearances. At best, soft delete and redirect. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 06:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found to meet the
WP:GNG, or at worst merge to X-Force per the proposed merge on the page. BOZ (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After having taken a closer look at what sources are available, I'm changing this to a straight-up "Keep" recommendation. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 17:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe with the secondary sources which have been added to the article, it now meets
WP:GNG and there is still potential to add more. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 21:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. I never heard of X-Statix before today, but from my search regarding the Dead Girl AfD, I'm convinced that they meet any notability tests out there. If a real Merge discussion with X-Force were actually started, I would "Strongly Oppose" it. I was on the fence with Dead Girl standing alone, but the greater team/comic is most definitely notable. Piotrus, you may not have seen my findings there, as they are recent and still did not lead to a keep !vote, but I will quote the posts here:

[Merge] to X-Statix? I'm on the fence on this one. She did star in her own book (and might meet the good Argento Surfer's criteria), and I was going to say that the article should be kept and shifted to focus more on the work than the character, but after searching, all 10 reviews here are coming from Comics Bulletin, so maybe she wasn't that notable to generate interest. I searched for X-Statix material, and she gets some passing mentions from The AV Club, Paste, and Newsarama, but this is all good material for X-Statix, not Dead Girl. She got some brief mentions of how her artwork was handled in a recent book here and here, but I can't really say any of this is material that can't be adequately covered in the greater X-Statix page. -2pou (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Turns out IGN did a couple reviews of Issue #1 and Issue #2, but those didn't have numerical values, hence their absence from the roundup. Still, with their brevity, I lean towards saying it can be covered by X-Statix. -2pou (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And though I don't really follow
WP:NEXIST. -2pou (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the series titled X-Statix has received significant coverage from both comics press and mass media: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] These are from a quick search and barely scratches the surface of what's available, particularly from print editions of Wizard, Comic Buyer's Guide, and Comics Journal. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable, and definitely doesn't seem compatible with X-Force, though the lede should be changed to make the article primarily about the series and not the superhero team. The series is really what's notable here, not the team itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons). Most "keep" opinions cannot be taken seriously, as they do not address the problems identified in the nomination. But the redirection allows the merger from history of third-party-sourceable material Sandstein 21:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons giant deities

List of Dungeons & Dragons giant deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Yet another listing of D&D gods by race, no indication this passes
WP:PRIMARY. See also related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons). Just noting for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge rather than delete, which is also a reasonable outcome here. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feys don't appear to have all that much in common with giants in general (and especially their deities), so a merger wouldn't work. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, trivial list and total plotcruft that fails
WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Like the other race specific deity lists, none of the individual entries are notable, and there are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the concept as a group in any meaningful way, so it fails
WP:LISTN. As the article is composed entirely of in-universe plot info with zero secondary sources, there is nothing worth preserving or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. I admit I am not thrilled at the prospect of deleting these lists; perhaps there are some sources on the individual deities, but they aren't independently notable, and this works as a decent enough compromise between covering them and not covering them. If this must go, perhaps a merge (per BOZ) to the article on giants. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The grouping as a whole fails to establish notability. There is no justification to it being a split. These character are not important enough for the general reader to care about. If Giant was actually an article that looked like it would stick around, I'd be fine with a summary style merge of a paragraph or two, but that looks like an easy deletion candidate. TTN (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to the D&D article on Giants. Sure, there's a chance that someone will nominate that article for deletion, but there's a chance that no one will. Michepman (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons). As usual, deleting information which can be merged elsewhere is of value to nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as per Necrothesp. Daranios (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). Most "keep" opinions cannot be taken seriously, as they do not address the problems identified in the nomination. But the redirection allows the merger from history of third-party-sourceable material Sandstein 21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities

List of Dungeons & Dragons fey deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet another listing of D&D gods by race, no indication this passes
WP:PRIMARY. See also related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to
Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). Just noting for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge rather than delete, which is also a reasonable outcome here. BOZ (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list, nothing to merge as all the references are just for plotcruft rather than real-world perspective._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As with the other race specific deity lists, none of the individual entries are notable (at least not the D&D versions), and there are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the concept as a group that would allow it to pass
WP:LISTN. There is nothing worth preserving or merging as the article is comprised entirely of plot information sourced only to primary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. I admit I am not thrilled at the prospect of deleting these lists; perhaps there are some sources on the individual deities, but they aren't independently notable, and this works as a decent enough compromise between covering them and not covering them. If this must go, perhaps a merge (per BOZ) to the article on fey. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The grouping as a whole fails to establish notability. There is no justification to it being a split. These character are not important enough for the general reader to care about. If Fey was actually an article that looked like it would stick around, I'd be fine with a summary style merge of a paragraph or two, but that looks like an easy deletion candidate. TTN (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to
Fey (Dungeons & Dragons). As usual, deleting information which can be merged elsewhere is of value to nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Nathair Sgiathach or another similar article. This information is valuable to anyone who wants to study the concept of fey within the context of D&D, but it is not really enough material to sustain an article. Michepman (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge as per Necrothesp. Daranios (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members. Consensus that notability hasn't been met. There was a significant gap between its 2013 deletion and recreation - a couple of years. As such pre-emptive salting doesn't appear critical. It can be added if needed Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Melling

William Melling (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)

Extremely minor actor. This is precisely the reason why List of Harry Potter cast members was created. See this relevant discussion for precedent. No other relevant nor notable acting roles apart from this, as gathered from the minimal sources available. PK650 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members, notability guidelines have not been met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant enough in works where he appeared to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and consider
WP:SALT. Only one source, but a second one is needed to meet GNG. ミラ P 01:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ethiopian Heritage Museum

Ethiopian Heritage Museum (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 significant updates to the status of a proposed museum since page creation in 2007. Only one source in article and tagged for update needed since 2008 with no sources added. That sole source is now 404 and
WP:BEFORE does not disclose alternatives. Only search result is probably not for this organization [31] due to not being located in same place, no indication of same organizers being involved, not having the same name, and still not being built three years later. Doubtful if this proposal was ever notable and no current evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The 2016 news item is probably the culmination of the project described in the article, and may well refer to something notable enough to need an article. I do not know whether there is enough in the article for it to be rescued and restructured into an article on the new centre, with a historical section describing the efforts of the Ethiopian Jews to het such a centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:, thanks for your input. I thought something similar but if it was the culmination of the effort described in our article, it was an awfully odd one. There is nothing in the Times of Israel article that reasonably establishes any kind of continuity between the projects and the "launch" of the later museum was only an announcement of an intention to actually build it. I can find no indication that this announcement has resulted in actual building activity or other definite progress. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the existing section Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum, including by adding reference there. It does look to be a prior plan for what became National Institute for Ethiopian Jewry Heritage Center covered in the 2016 article cited in the deletion nomination. Add a bit to that section, saying it was planned but didn't happen as expected, apparently, then this probably related result happened. --Doncram (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ethiopian Heritage Museum" section title probably should be changed, to broaden the section to be about initiatives to create cultural heritage center(s) in Israel. This 2016 article by a Judy Jaffe-Schagen, titled "Creating Space. The Construction of Ethiopian Heritage and Memory in Israel" provides broader context, about how Israel in the past pressured immigrant/refugee Ethiopian Jews to abandon their heritage, but more recently shifted to seeing the merit of recognizing their heritage, and that this latter approach would actually help in their assimilation. Anyhow, the article that is target of this AFD can/should be merged to there, and the section should be broadened. But, right, it probably isn't right for Wikipedia to keep the current article as it is, with its very specific title that was one specific proposal that hasn't panned out. This is similar to AFD i have seen about some Riverwalk type development in Colorado Springs (?), where the proposal was specific in one name, while the built project took a slightly different name. It was silly to be deleting the article that was created at the time of the proposal, it just needed to be moved to the new name. --Doncram (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The parent section in the article pointed to also clearly cannot survive on its present form. The whole thing seems to fail
WP:CRYSTAL. The 2016 article might constitute the basis for a substitute section. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, sure the section there should be renamed to something more general like "Movement to create museums" or "Scholarship about, and education of the public in Israel about, Ethiopian Jewish heritage". Because "Ethiopian Heritage Museum" as a specific proposed title of a museum didn't pan out. But it still makes sense as a section to have, and we can have an anchor there. Okay, I am now defining an anchor there which will still work even if/when the section is renamed. So I think
Ethiopian Heritage Museum can be merged and redirected specifically to Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Ethiopian Heritage Museum, where there [already is info] about this specific name, within the section whatever is its revised section title [and more needs to be merged, including the source]. --Doncram (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC) [revised --Doncram (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)][reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reditrect to the later project
WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps one or two sentences from the present content might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect, same as what Peterkingiron said.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power Boy

Power Boy (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comiccruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every named character ever in comics is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 11 December 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 soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Paris School of Architecture

Paris School of Architecture (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 institution does not appear to meet the General Notability Guideline. it appears to be a small for-profit school founded in 2015 with no notable alumni, significant coverage other than its own website, or other indicia of notability. I conducted a search for additional information per
WP:Before and found nothing. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 13 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Techkriti

Techkriti (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)

Majority of article is advertisement. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject easily passes
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP if you believe that the content is promotional, tag it as such or fix the issues. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Off-topic, this should be addressed elsewhere

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles,
WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only took me a quick Google search to find a ton of reliable sources covering this event in detail. I agree that the article is not very well written but we should evaluate articles based on their potential and not what they currently look like. A badly written article on a notable subject should get an article but should be cleaned up by experts, while a well-written article on a non-encyclopedic topic is delete-worthy. Michepman (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Enough lasting independent coverage to pass
WP:TNT territory. A substantial trim may be needed including the removal of many sections unless an experienced translator/evaluator of hindi language sources finds they are reliable and support existing content. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 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. Although GNG was never specifically mentioned, it appears from the keep arguments that it is likely to meet that guideline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Peake

Nigel Peake (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)

PROD declined, there's no indication that Peake is notable per the
reliable sources. The "silver commendation" alone is not enough to establish notability. SITH (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the present article text's focus on student work contains little to suggest notability, the subject may be more prominent as an artist/illustrator: 2005 exhibition article, 2016 exhibition article. His career to date probably falls short of
WP:NARTIST but it is another angle worth taking into account so I am tagging the Visual Arts project. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet any of the ways for notability as an artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with
Interior Design [36] and Surface magazine [37]. There are a lot of other Google News results too. I think it will be worth checking if his works are held in the permanent collections of any galleries. Given that this article is new, it's surprising that it doesn't mention any of this - but it should certainly be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also a The Morning News (online magazine) article[38] to go with all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 11 December 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Golden Guy

Little Golden Guy (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)

website without any decent references or claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has a lot of references and this is definitely notable. Interstellarity (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreement with Interstellarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays64 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 external reference. Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Academy Awards, which is the subject of the website. BD2412 T 05:00, 21 December 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 13:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Monet

Melissa Monet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · Stats):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Has received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. I added more refs to the article and the one in the The Gazette suggests notability, saying she "was a major blue-movie star until she moved behind the camera and started directing.".Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that was added by the above user were citations to confirm early life details, and a short interview by a German Vice contributor about his masturbatory predilections. Said contributor is anonymous, not even an actual journalist. Zaathras (talk) 19:15, 15 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Kousri

Najma Kousri (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 claims subject is a journalist but subject fails
WP:GNG woefully. References provided mentions subject in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the references mention her much more than "in passing". Searching French wikipedia for her (no article) suggests that her journalism is significant - she turns up as author in a lot of references in that wiki. The Ameni ref (currently no.6) is entirely about her and her experience re her activism. The World Pride speaker bio is brief but indicates notability. Co-founder of the Tunisian equivalent of #MeToo is a notable role/achievement.Pam D 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If by any mischance the article is deleted, the content of the
EnaZeda section needs to be split off and preserved as a separate article. PamD 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As per PamD. I have added stuff for Ms Kousri at commons and wikidata - refs are found. Victuallers (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see that the encyclopaedia would benefit from removing this well referenced entry about an interesting figure. I've had a look for coverage in Arabic and can't find anything substantial, but I do think that the diverse range of references cited here (to which I've added a couple) gets Najma Kousri over the line for general notability. Good point that
EnaZeda deserves coverage on Wikipedia as meeting the general notability criteria, whether through the current redirect to Najma's entry or through an entry of its own. Alarichall (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Now adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensively referenced and likely to be of interest to researchers of equality campaigning worldwide. Seacroft (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other arguments presented here. -Yupik (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds recognized by the FCI

List of dog breeds recognized by the FCI (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 GNG, unnecessary FORK of
WP:PRIMARY source. If anyone is truly curious about what breeds the FCI are recognising they can visit their website, which incidentally is the only source used for the list. The breed standards, which make up the bulk of the citations, are all included on the breed pages, there is a dedicated parameter for the link in Template:Infobox dog breed
.
Additionally nominating the following redirects that relate solely to this page, they were all redirected to this page in December last year following this discussion (link not great):

FCI Companion and Toy Dog Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Dachshund Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Pinscher and Schnauzer, Molossoid and Swiss Mountain Dog Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Pointer Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Retriever, Flushing Dog and Water Dog Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Scenthound Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Sheepdogs and Cattle Dogs Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Sighthound Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Spitz and Primitive Types Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FCI Terrier Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of dog breeds has a sortable column dedicated to the FCI classifications so a duplicate article is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 07:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Reywas92. I have been waiting for this one, it is truly unnecessary and possibly not kept up to date. William Harristalk 07:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning of Reywas92 and
WP:CFORK. There is no need to duplicate an article where this content can already be easily found. All the redirects should be removed as per G8. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Entirely redundant with existing lists as others have mentioned.
talk) 18:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spy Glass Blue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Glass Blue (EP)

Spy Glass Blue (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

We may witness just 0 (zero) reviews, chart tops or so. The criteria presented in
WP:NALBUM are not met. -- Pr12402 (talk) 11 December, 2019 (UTC) pr12402 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a stub which completely lacks proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spy Glass Blue. I could not find any coverage on the EP so it does not have the requirements for independent notability, but I could see this being a valid search so a redirect back to the band may be helpful. The EP is briefly discussed in the article already. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spy Glass Blue per Aoba47. Hug^syrup 11:15, 18 December 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_11&oldid=1142224487"

[1] ttps://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty