Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 December	3 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winners Don't Use Drugs

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

There are only three sources, two of which are reviews of media parodying the phrase. Recycle It, Don't Trash It! was previously deleted, so I don't see why this should stay. Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just doing a cursory Google search on both news and books shows this phrase popping up a lot, and because it was coming from the Advertising Council of the DOJ so there's gov't documents on it. Books are showing a lot of hints more than just passing mention (there's connection to McGruff here as well), so there would need to be a more thorough review of print sources that can easily support why this campaign and any effects that it had to reduce drug use by game players. --Masem (t) 06:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
American Amusement Machine Association which appears to be notable and should be recreated with proper sources. It seems to have been primarily behind adding the slogan to arcade games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Did you not google the topic before nominating it for deletion? There's tons of sources out there waiting to be pulled. This phrase is arguably one of the most famous phrases in gaming history. This should not be even nominated. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? It would help if you listed the sources in question._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Inverse and Escapist have lengthy articles on the phrase. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Masem’s comment, simply doing a quick Google search provides plenty of reliable sources covering this. I’m sure with some digging that more can be found, but it still has enough coverage to warrant itself having an article. It’s like the nominator didn’t even bother looking for anything before attempting to nominate this for deletion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely notable hoax. The inverse article is fairly in depth, as is this one, I've little doubt more could be found. Wily D 17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable hoax. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 7 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) 23:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elfhelm

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

Not sufficiently notable fictional character. "Elfhelm" has a bunch of Google scholar hits, but all but two are either for an ancient Briton or a different, apparently unrelated, fictional character. Of the two sources I could find, one is a list of names titled "Spell Checking the Lord of the Rings" (not in-depth) and the other source doesn't appear to be enough to pass

WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. A very minor character — with a common name!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another piece of fancruft that is already better covered at https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Elfhelm . Keeping such articles here just does a disservice to our readers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete ot every character in an epic romance is notable. At least not one written in the last 500 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
redirects are cheap. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails GNG. Belongs on fandom.Kacper IV (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another piece of fancruft Wm335td (talk) 17:55, 8 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. Given two consecutive relists with no further discussion, I feel we're at a point of no consensus given the requirements to do a

third relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Samurai Kids

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

No evidence of any notability for this film. Neither of the two refs are RS (IMDB and MUBI.com. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Keep This source says that the film won a
WP:NFO 3. ミラ P 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need analysis of sources provided by Miraclepine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{'s public account} 22:48, 2 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Last Mountain

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

No news found of this film in google Memon KutianaWala (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 17:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: it appears that this was the first ever English-language film made in Pakistan, was screened at the New York Film Festival in 1976, and was reviewed by David Robinson of The Times in London and A.R. Slote of The Star in Karachi, among others, all of which would seem to indicate a degree of notability. However, I do not have access to a newspaper archive to check these facts, so it would be helpful if someone else could verify these details. Richard3120 (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the offline sources mentioned above include two reviews in national newspapers The Times and Pakistan's Star indicate that
WP:NFILM criteria 1 seems to be passed and there is no need for deletion in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be helpful for a Pakistani editor who has access to these newspapers to help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{'s public account} 22:42, 2 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) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Twilight

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

Tolkien concept so obscure not even Google can find information on it. Basically no in-universe notability, really none the real world. Hog Farm (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, I was thinking of a different franchise when I saw that link. I would assume that most readers would have a similar response. We should not have articles on obscure content that can easily be confused with more notable things. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't even have primary sources, except for a brief reference to LOTR. Completely trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Super obscure Tolkien fancruft, fails GNG. Again, this kind of stuff can happily exist at wikia, the right link is https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Middle_Men --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete This level of detail would only be justified if Middle Earth were a real place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprised at how close the text is here and at the Wikia site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. This belongs on fandom, not here.Kacper IV (talk) 12:23, 5 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) 00:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werner G. Scharff

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

Article about a businessperson that fails

WP:ANYBIO

. The sources provided are not satisfactory, the only reliable sources and publication about the subject is about his death, the rest are his name being listed on directories nothing more.

Also it was created by a blocked user. Lapablo (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up. But a search turned up numerous reliable sources, including newspaper articles and books, and not just business listings, as the nom stated, about the subject across several decades. Many of those sources are already in the article, including lengthy obituaries in The New York Times here and Los Angeles Times here. The subject, an established business owner, clothing designer and manufacturer, easily passes
WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable per RS. The article has reliable sources and others also exist per
WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 7 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) 22:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyi-Leo

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

Fails GNG and bordering on PROMOTION. Another registered trademark (look at the first reference [1]) "breed" which is reality is a line of crossbreds marketed for the promotion of a business’s (puppy farm) product. I can find only one RS on Google with only a mention and scant information, the remaining Google hits are the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not shown, list anything worth salvaging at List of dog crossbreeds but I wouldn't put a made-up trademark there! Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, I concur with the book search, it should reside on the ever-growing list of cross-breeds that will eventually total the 30,000 combinations possible. William Harristalk 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
not notable, it's not even wrong. It claims it's a this kind of bread, back-tracks, and then it says something else. The sourcing is laughable. Sorry not sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - right in line with the above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prelight Films

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

Non-notable subject with dubious (

WP:NFILM

.

Accordingly, I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to heavy promotional tone.TH1980 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; I don't see
WP:NFILM. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:17, 9 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) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Networks

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

Goncalves, Marcus (1999). IP Multicasting: Concepts and Applications. New York:
ISBN 0-07-913791-1
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.

Forbes. Archived from the original
on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.

"US Desktop Video Conferencing Market 1994-1999". Mountain View: Input. 1994. p. V-9. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
Miller, C. Kenneth (1999). Multicast Networking and Applications. Reading, Massachusetts:
ISBN 0-201-30979-3
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.

Bunzel, Mark J.; Morris, Sandra K. (1994). Multimedia Applications Development: Using Indeo Video and Dvi Technology (2 ed.). New York:
ISBN 0-07-043300-3
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.

Varon, Elana (1998-08-30). "Customs will use StarLive for broadcast". Federal Computer Week. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
Schroeder, Erica (1992-10-05). "StarWorks spreads video across LANs".
PC Week. 9 (40). Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.

Hambeln, Matt (1996-12-23). "Bloomberg TV has digital take". Computerworld. Vol. 30, no. 52. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
Lapolla, Stephanie (1996-09-30). "StarWorks is born for NT".
PC Week. Vol. 13, no. 39. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.

Streeter, April (1992-09-28). "Starlight video server for Macs, PCs: 486-based system delivers QuickTime". MacWEEK. Vol. 6, no. 34. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
Chernicoff, David P. (1993-03-01). "StarWorks taps 10BaseT LANs to provide multiuser video".
PC Week. Vol. 10, no. 8. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.

Schwartz, Jeffrey (1998-08-03). "Marriage Brings Video Apps Under One Roof". InternetWeek. No. 719. UBM plc. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
Thompson, George A. (1995-12-01). "Battle of the networked stars". HP Professional. Vol. 9, no. 12. 1105 Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
Caulfield, Brian (1998-06-08). "Selling the Government On Streaming Content". Internet World. Vol. 4, no. 21. Penton. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.

Sources with quotes

Goncalves, Marcus (1999). IP Multicasting: Concepts and Applications. New York:
ISBN 0-07-913791-1
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The book notes:
Starlight Networks

Starlight Networks' challenge was to provide full-motion video and multi-media applications to desktop PCs, using existing hardware, without slowing down the network or interfering with other mission-critical applications.
To accomplish that, the company developed a data streaming software that provides guaranteed delivery of live or stored full-motion video, audio and animation to desktops without sacrificing network speed or capacity. It is possible to run multimedia applications and video-enhanced web pages from services quickly and reliably without downloading.
Starlight Networks understands the technology required to guarantee delivery of full-motion video to solving the problems inherent in this effort. Users are demanding access to mixed media applications on an unprecedented scale. These applications may generate enough audio/video traffic to overwhelm an unprotected local area network.
Starlight Networks offers powerful software packages that enable organizations to stream on-demand video, live broadcasts and multimedia applications to hundreds of desktops across existing networks:
The book then discusses StarLive, StarCenter, StarCast, and StarWorks.

Forbes. Archived from the original
on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The article notes:
As the chairman of Starlight Networks, a Mountain View, Calif.-based software company, Long has never lost sight of his main objective--to develop streaming products for corporations like Boeing, General Motors and Bloomberg.
...
Long and Starlight cofounder Charlie Bass (who also started Ungermann-Bass, one of the first Ethernet companies) pitched the concept to venture capitalists.
Basing his technology on MPEG1 and MPEG2 video, Long and Bass came up with a proprietary technology to achieve high-quality video streaming. (MPEG--Moving Pictures Experts Group--is a standard for compressing video, and MPEG-2 is used in DVD movies.)
Excited VCs pumped in $2 million in seed money, and over the next six years the company raised an additional $20 million in five rounds of funding from VCs like Sequoia Capital, InterWest, Access Partners and Star Ventures.
...
The company has developed a $50,000 software package dubbed StarWorks. The software has already won widespread support. There are 300 companies--100 of which are already clients and 200 that are testing Starlight's software to stream video over their networks.
...
The financial services industry has also embraced Starlight with open arms, representing almost 50% of the company's sales. (Government and education sectors come in a close second and third.) Brokerage firm SmithBarney is going to replace its hoot-and-holler trading system with Starlight's software--a contract that could be worth a couple of million dollars for a company which did upwards of $5 million in sales in 1997.

"US Desktop Video Conferencing Market 1994-1999". Mountain View: Input. 1994. p. V-9. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The report notes:
This report and related research is part of INPUT's Market Analysis Program (MAP). This program provides market research, reports, consulting and recommendations to the management of leading vendors in the information services industry and to information systems functions of user organizations.

The report notes:
9. Starlight Networks Inc. StarWorks Release 1.7 networking software

Starlight Networks' products allow for real-time storage and network management of digital video applications.
Its current technology includes video application servers, based on a client/server platform configuration that allows up to 40 simultaneous users to share full-motion, full-screen video applications. It also supports a variety of network configuration and video content.
The recent StarWorks upgrade provides users with up to 50Mbps of video/audio streaming capacity and adds bandwidth reservation, which is designed to improve throughput to multiple users. This will provide desktop users with Ethernet links as much as 1.2Mbps throughput. This will require, however, an FDDI backbone between the StarWorks server and an Ethernet switched hub.
The company's technology, as it continues to evolve, will be complementary to store and forward digital video applications, broadcast video and eventually desktop video conferencing over LAN/WAN network configurations.
Miller, C. Kenneth (1999). Multicast Networking and Applications. Reading, Massachusetts:
ISBN 0-201-30979-3
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The book notes on page 118:
Besides the giants of the Web, Microsoft and Netscape, smaller companies such as Icast, Precept Software, Starlight Networks, and RealNetworks have been formed in the last few years to address real-time multimedia applications.
...
*Starlight Networks was acquired by PictureTel in July 1998.
The book notes on page 119:
Today, Paribas uses streaming video from Starlight Networks to enhance its information delivery.
...
In a piilot application, live feeds of Reuters and Bloomberg television are delivered directly to traders' desktop computers via Starlight Networks' streaming video software and multicast IP. As a consequence, traders no longer have to leave their desks to watch these broadcasts in a viewing room. Rather, they can keep abreast of late-breaking financial news and their investment portfolio activity simultaneously.
...
On February 17, 1998, Starlight Networks announced that Smith Barney, the United States' second largest retail brokerage firm, was implementing its StarCast software. The adoption represented an innovative move by Smith Barney to deliver real-time, video-based financial information to approximately 11,000 financial consultants and managers at nearly 500 remove branch locations across a satellite network. Smith Barney advisers will be able to receive live information from industry and market analysts directly on their desktop workstations; in the future, they will have access to commercial video feeds, custom-developed reports, and multimedia training material.
The book notes on page 120:
Smith Barney has been working with Starlight Networks for six months to complete the prototype system. The video rollout started in the second half of 1997. The primary video content will consist of analysts' daily briefings, which will be delivered directly and in real time to the desktop. A video encoder running StarCast Multicaster will send the feed to local desktops at the New York headquarters and retransmit the feed via Smith Barneys' satellite network. At each receiving location, a video server running StarCast Recaster will then take the feed and multicast it to all local desktops. Financial consultants will be able to remain at their desks and view broadcasts on their PC desktops through the StarCast Viewer, without disrupting other applications or feeds.
[three more paragraphs about StarCast]

Bunzel, Mark J.; Morris, Sandra K. (1994). Multimedia Applications Development: Using Indeo Video and Dvi Technology (2 ed.). New York:
ISBN 0-07-043300-3
. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The book notes on page 76:
StarWorks from Starlight Networks, Inc. uses a different approach to providing multiple workstations accessing video files. StarWorks, when installed on an Intel468 microprocessor-based EISA server supports up to 20 simultaneous multimedia users accessing streams of video, audio, and animation. StarWorks allows users to access video and other applications simultaneously, requiring no application modification to DOS and Windows applications, and coexists with other LAN protocols used by network operating systems.

The book notes on pages 223–224:
Starlight Networks is also marketing networking software optimized for the delivery of multimedia information over a local area network. Starlight combines the capability of controlling the delivery of motion video and audio files in continuous streams. In its optimal configuration, motion video and audio files are stored on a separate, high-performance file server in a switched ethernet topology, using an intelligent hub. In this way, when an application requires the higher data rate for contiguous multimedia files, the information is directed through the intelligent switch hub to the appropriate workstation. Starlight has been successful delivering multimedia data in the worst-case scenario of 20 multimedia workstations in a classroom, where all students are working on the same lesson at the same time.

Varon, Elana (1998-08-30). "Customs will use StarLive for broadcast". Federal Computer Week. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
The article notes:
The Customs Service will use new video streaming technology from Starlight Networks Inc., to broadcast live over the Internet a briefing on a system for collecting information from importers. The briefing, planned for Sept. 3, will be distributed over the Internet at the same time it is broadcast by satellite.
...
Observers said the Customs event is one sign of growing interest among agencies in using Internet-based video and audio technologies. "There's a tremendous amount of initial interest, at least in examining the technologies that are available, for delivering video and audio online, said Al Lill, vice president and research director with Gartner Group. He said the most prominent applications for the technology are distance learning, telemedicine and faster information dissemination.
...
Starlight, which is being acquired by videoconferencing vendor PictureTel Corp., is the "most prominent firm in the industry for applications in which video quality matters, Lill said.
Schroeder, Erica (1992-10-05). "StarWorks spreads video across LANs".
PC Week. 9 (40). Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.
The article notes:
Star light, star bright, what video should I watch tonight?
Networked PC users will soon be able to ask themselves that question with the help of startup Starlight Networks Inc., which last week introduced a system that allows as many as 20 users to simultaneously access and view videos located centrally on a standard Ethernet network.
...
Industry analysts said StarWorks will increase the market for networked video products.
"The product is outstanding, and the most important thing is they took a very pragmatic approach in terms of preserving investment," said Albert Lill, vice president at Gartner Group Inc., a market-research firm in Stamford, Conn. "It explodes the myth that ATM [asynchronous transfer mode] and FDDI [Fiber Distributed Data Interface] are required to run video over a network."
Users of the product will be "anybody who has any requirements for a visual database, anyone with complex products and extensive field service and support organizations, as well as advertising agencies and media agencies," he said.

Hambeln, Matt (1996-12-23). "Bloomberg TV has digital take". Computerworld. Vol. 30, no. 52. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
The article notes:
At Bloomberg TV, financial news gets shown and updated continuously around the world. But all that video isn't stored on videotape.
Instead, it is kept on Sun Solaris digital networking servers in New York, Tokyo and London and accessed with StarWorks software by Starlight Networks, Inc. in Mountain View, Calif.
News is then sent by satellite around the world, and ends up on radio and television stations such as USA Network that are viewed by millions of people each day.
Bloomberg TV, a subsidiary of Bloomberg LP in New York, has used the software for two years on its Sun Microsystems, Inc. servers. The company soon will upgrade with StarWorks 3.0, which was released in early December, for higher quality and speed, Bloomberg officials said.
...
StarWorks allows multiple digitized news segments to be stored and retrieved at the same time over a standard Ethernet network. Television-quality video of 30 frame/sec. can be provided. StarWorks 3.0 provides recording and playback of a video stream at speeds up to 200M bit/sec.
...
Starlight's competitors include Sun, Digital Equipment Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and IBM. But they haven't shown the working knowledge of networks that Starlight has, Ball said.
Lapolla, Stephanie (1996-09-30). "StarWorks is born for NT".
PC Week. Vol. 13, no. 39. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.
The article notes:
Starlight Networks Inc. will announce this week availability of its Windows NT-based digital video management technology.
StarWorks 3.0 is capable of delivering both live and stored audio, video and graphical media streams from a Windows NT server to hundreds of desktops simultaneously via Netscape Communications Corp.'s Navigator or Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer browsers.
...
The U.S. Marine Corps depends on StarWorks field training before sending soldiers into a war zone.

Streeter, April (1992-09-28). "Starlight video server for Macs, PCs: 486-based system delivers QuickTime". MacWEEK. Vol. 6, no. 34. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
The article notes:
Full-motion QuickTime movies may be playing soon on Macintosh Ethernet networks.
Due next month, the Starlight Media Server from Starlight Networks Inc. will transform an Intel 486-based computer into a video application server for Macs, IBM PCs and compatibles, and Unix workstation clients. Unix-based server software, called StarWorks, will control an array of hard drives to support simultaneous delivery of QuickTime or DVI (Digital Video Interactive) video clips to as many as 10 Mac clients for about $23,000.
The Starlight Media Server, which initially will work with 10BASE T or thin Ethernet cabling, includes the following components:
Chernicoff, David P. (1993-03-01). "StarWorks taps 10BaseT LANs to provide multiuser video".
PC Week. Vol. 10, no. 8. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale
.
The article notes:
With its StarWorks digital video networking software, Starlight Networks Inc. is the first to provide network users with a way to piggyback on a video solution that provides the familiar 30-frame-per-second data rate without requiring a dedicated high-performance network.
...
Starlight also provides a proprietary Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)-like data storage and management scheme that supports the high-performance data streaming necessary for maintaining a full-motion-video data rate.
...
We could find no obvious flaws in the StarWorks' implementation. However, we did encounter some configuration problems, in part because of the lack of a Digital Video Interactive (DVI) standard. Most of the standards issues are expected to be resolved within the next 18 months.

Schwartz, Jeffrey (1998-08-03). "Marriage Brings Video Apps Under One Roof". InternetWeek. No. 719. UBM plc. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
The article notes:
But PictureTel Corp., the leading supplier of videoconferencing systems, is hoping to marry the two technologies as a result of its pending acquisition of Starlight Networks Inc. PictureTel last month disclosed its intent to acquire Star-light for an undisclosed sum.
...
Starlight is regarded as a leading supplier of streaming multimedia software and video-on-demand servers. The company could be just what PictureTel needs to bring the conferencing and IP multicasting worlds together, said Gartner Group analyst Al Lill.
"Instead of going to one set of vendors to get videoconferenc-ing and another to get video-on-demand, customers will be able to go to one vendor," Lill said.
...
Lill also said Starlight's streaming video technology is best suited for large-scale enterprise applications because it supports both low- and high-bandwidth connections.
Thompson, George A. (1995-12-01). "Battle of the networked stars". HP Professional. Vol. 9, no. 12. 1105 Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
The article notes:
"It's a litmus test of the viability of video distribution over LANs," according to Jim Greene, analyst for Summit Strategies (Boston, Mass.). Microsoft's Tiger and Oracle's VideoServer will be eventual competitors predicts Greene, but for now the HP/Starlight combination is unchallenged. Although claiming that the solution is scalable up to HP 9000 systems, it remains to be seen because not be available until sometime in 1996 when Starlight's UNIX-based StarWorks product is ported to the HP-UX platform. In the meantime, the Intel solution will be available from HP direct and indirect channels and sold for information-on-demand, performance support and video training applications in the financial services, telecommunications and retail markets.
Unlike HP's own MPower and InSoft's Communique! (another HP alliance), which are UNIX-based video conferencing solutions, the Starlight bundle is a video streaming technology. "They distribute information differently," explains Greene.
Caulfield, Brian (1998-06-08). "Selling the Government On Streaming Content". Internet World. Vol. 4, no. 21. Penton. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
The article notes:
It's the job of John Downey, deputy director of information management for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (ACQWeb), to get information to the people at each facility responsible for buying the supplies the military needs. But when Downey decided streaming video was the way to go, he realized he couldn't rely on the kind of homogeneous high-speed networks common at large corporations.
Instead, he turned to a combination of products from corporate intranet streaming specialist Starlight Networks Inc., Mountain View, Calif., and from RealNetworks Inc., Seattle, which dominates the market for streaming video over the public Internet. The solution Downey assembled can play high-quality video over the ATM backbone at the Pentagon's air-conditioned offices as well as get the same message through to a supply officer sweltering in a Quonset hut at a remote tropical base.
...
At government facilities with access to high-speed Internet links, Starlight Networks Starlive client software runs the video, chat, and slide presentations on user desktops. At locations with slower connections, the DoD uses RealNetworks clients and a Web browser.
...
Greg Tapper, an analyst with Giga Information Group, Santa Clara, Calif., said the Pentagons adoption of the technology shows that video on organizational intranets is creeping beyond the initial core of large, technology-savvy businesses.

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow Starlight Networks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs analysis of Cunard's RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep. Without delving into reliability of each individual source, trust Cunard's judgment. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cunard has located sources to show notability. And the nominator has been careless in the nomination and
WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Using Cunard's numbering above: 1 is good and meets the criteria for establishing notability; 2 fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 8 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

(non-admin closure) ミラ P 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Kiss in the Blue

)

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

Article is unsourced and a stub. Fails

WP:NBOOK. lullabying (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Retarget to author Article reads like a trailer or review. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - stubs are okay,
unsourced is not. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 4 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) 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth Lego sets

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

Non-notable product series. Lots of sources, but lots of fan sites, press releases, and Collider, which is not always of the greatest reliability. A lot of the article is just minutiae of who all is included in each sets. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. Hog Farm (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two sets/themes are already in List of Lego themes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 17:16, 5 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) 19:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise (Edain)

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

Small group with Tolkien's Edain. The Edain were already redirected to another page based on

Man (Middle-earth), does not mention The Wise, so it's not a good redirect or merger target. Not enough notability in the real world to warrant an article specifically for this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. An obscure designation that apparently appears only in subsidiary works. Nearly all of the article isn't even about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Next step would be creating articles about each tree or rock mentioned in Tolkien books... fails GNG in an extreme fashion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't temp the fancrufters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete We do not need articles on every concept, idea, and unique use of a word in the works of Tolkien.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG in an extreme fashion.Kacper IV (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
Man (Middle-earth)#Edain, but is not mentioned even there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 9 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) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnophkeh

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this differs any from
Voormis. Same sources, mostly. Possibly merge somewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete These creatures have never received any meaningful coverage from an academic or journalistic publication. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Happily survives at https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Gnoph-keh --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails GNG. Content survives on fandom.com.Kacper IV (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:GNG, yet a bit more fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 9 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) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Strehl

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

Subject fails

WP:NACADEMIC #1 is the closest shot at notability, but his h-index sits at 12 per Google Scholar, with no meaningful results on Scopus. It is important to distinguish him from Alexander L. Strehl, who appears to be a different computer scientist. The subject's bio at University of Aalen differs substantially from information available on A.L. Strehl, and his PhD is from University of Texas, while A.L.'s is from Rutgers. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based purely on that one paper. 4000 cites for what looks like a novel methodology description (not a review or a textbook) would seem to translate into "substantial impact on the field". Not enchanted with the essentially
WP:BLP1E status and the original genesis as an autobio, but there you go. - Note: it's a bit weird that we would very likely make this a redirect to the BLP1E event/topic (Consensus_clustering#Hard_ensemble_clustering) for an author, singer, celebrity etc., but we don't for academics. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The
WP:BIO1E problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NPROF#1 Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 7 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) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collins E. Ijoma

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

inadequate references for living person, whose career shows no notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the position he held is so minor, we are not even told where he held it, or when he held it. Both signs that he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only claim to notability can't be
So what? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - basically no independent
WP:GNG or any other relevant standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:26, 9 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 keep. Per

WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sinpu Ocean

)

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

Appears to be a hoax. Miramar and Marine traffic returns no ship by this name ever. Google returns no results other than wikimirrors Lyndaship (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am guessing this article is about Xin Pu Yang (新埔洋) (yang meaning ocean), which at its 2010 launch was China's largest tanker ([2]), although not any more it seems: [3]. ----Pontificalibus 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Thank you to User:Pontificalibus for making sense of this situation. I gather it is one of the largest tankers belonging to China, so one of the largest in the world. User:Macaujacko provided a service by creating this article back in 2010, probably seeing extensive coverage at the time and seeing the clear notability/importance. Too bad they didn't add sources back then, but that is how things worked in Wikipedia then. And too bad it has not been further developed. Needs to be tagged and/or developed, not deleted. This is nearly an orphan, it is only linked in a "See also" from China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation article.

Obviously huge ships, oil tankers and other tankers, are important in the world, and there should be sensible coverage in Wikipedia. There is not currently sensible coverage, IMHO, because there is no overall development of a List of tankers and/or List of oil tankers, which would correspond to existing Category:Tankers and Category:Oil tankers but provide actual context. A list can/should provide sizes of the ships and year of construction/launch, and utilize overview sources about the set of tankers in the world, and it can/should include redlinks where there are gaps. Currently there is no presentation in Wikipedia about this one ship putting it into any context; a list-article is needed IMHO to provide context. And then perhaps a bunch of the smaller stub articles (and even this one possibly) could better be redirected to the list-article, actually, to provide information in context which delivers more value to a reader than info dereft of context. --Doncram (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Xin Pu Yang. I've added two sources. As the (former) largest oil tanker in China, and possibly the largest in the world, this ship is notable. -Zanhe (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Thanks to User:Pontificalibus for excellent work Lyndaship (talk) 07:42, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Laverdure

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

WP:CIRCULAR citation to ourselves. As always, it's not the things the article says that make a person notable enough for an article -- it's the quality and depth and independence of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says, but none of these are valid or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete We really do want to avoid being self-referential.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certainly independent, reliable sources that verify that she is the Director General of the BAnQ (eg [4], [5], [6], [7]) - note that I am not saying that they constitute SIGCOV, though. I have been trying to work out whether other archivists, about whom there are articles, are notable based on specific guidelines, or by virtue of being the head of national archives. Some certainly meet
WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 9 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 Philips. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philips Design

)

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

The main article on

WP:CORPDEPTH. The only coverage I'd call significant (here) describes how product design helped to rejuvenate Philips, which would be more appropriately integrated into the main Philips article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From the nomination comments it seems like a merge or redirect might be appropriate here, so relisting rather than moving directly to soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objection whatsoever to the relist (certainly some discussion should take place), but for clarity's sake, the source I mentioned above as a prospect for inclusion into the main Philips article is not currently included in the Philips Design article. Other merge-worthy material is already included in the main Philips article, as far as I can tell. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is appropriate to the primary
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 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) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Telescope Markup Language

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

Restored after being PROD deleted on the grounds that it is mentioned in a few telescope manuals, but I still can't find much more than that and material written by the language's creators. I remain unconviced that this is notable. Reyk _YO! 17:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like this language has been discussed in detail in many reliable sources, including journal and news articles; not all are telescope manuals or from the creators. There's usable content for expansion about the language's history, structure, and current uses, so I'd say it passes
WP:SIGCOV and merits a keep. ComplexRational (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have since added some sources. While the article may remain a stub, these sources seem to demonstrate notability (they are independent, detailed, and peer-reviewed). ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added by ComplexRational show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and the ESA source describes RTML as a standard. The topic merits a keep per
WP:HEY. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:21, 3 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. Lack of sources discussing the usage rather than just using the phrase. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say we didn't tell it before

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

Article about a thing that's not really a thing. Despite the weird title, talk page discussion has identified that it's really just a bad translation of a phrase more appropriately translated as "Don't say I/we didn't warn you" -- but that's a phrase that basically everybody on earth has heard from our own mothers at some point in our lives. This simply isn't a uniquely Chinese expression or concept — it's just the Chinese-language version of a phrase that exists in many languages, and always means "You're doing something dumb, stop it or you'll be sorry". Even in a political or diplomatic context, literally any government could potentially use its own language's version of "don't say we didn't warn you" as a war threat, so even that isn't a basis for claiming uniqueness here. And this article just lists four specific examples of the phrase being used, but fails to demonstrate a reason why the Chinese version of it would be more notable than its equivalent in any other language — it sources the fact that the phrase was used, but fails to source that there's been any analysis about the usage as a topic. And per

WP:WAX, the fact that an article exists on the Chinese Wikipedia is not a reason why one automatically needs to exist in English too. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't Say We Didn't Warn You is an album. No article at Don't say we didn't warn you. Possible needs an article? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Propose to rename as 'Don't Say We Didn't Warn You' or 'Don't Say We Didn't Warn You (Chinese Diplomatic Term)' GodCallMeGod (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GodCallMeGod is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to emphasize that 勿谓言之不预也 is different from Don't say we didn't warn you as the Chinese term is not Mandarin, but classical Chinese. It has sources in Chinese literature. If you would like to express it mandarin Chinese (modern Chinese language today), it should be 别说我没警告过你. Different ways of expression implies different lingual atmosphere. Moreover, it is filled with a diplomatic meaning by Chinese Government. It deserves to be an article as of enough public concern, and the only issue is the right way of translation.GodCallMeGod (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its diplomatic meaning is no different in Chinese than it would be if the Canadian government used the English or French versions of the same phrase, if the American government used the English version, if the German government used the German equivalent, and on and so forth. It doesn't have special meaning in Chinese that's greater than its meaning in any other language. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons exemplarily denoted in the nomination. This would be, at best, a common expression in
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 9 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyclick

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

As of writing this site ranks #1,566,501 in global internet engagement according to

WP:COMPANY. Uhooep (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, seeing nothing. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 2 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) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armies of Warhammer

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

Non-notable topic. Just a bare-bones game guide list. TTN (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Effectively a List of different factions in Warhammer universe. This kind of list serves no purpose, and in either case will survive in articles on the universe itself and/or the related commercial products (games). Article fails GNG and LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Per
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ZXCVBNM above, fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 9 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) 17:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old One in fiction

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

Collection of trivial, fictional, unconnected concepts that share a similar name. There's not even a shared theme, everything from gods to ancient aliens. It should be deleted and Old One probably be redirect to Lovecraft or turned into a dab page. TTN (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete As you said, unconnected. It refers to any mention of the words "Old One" rather than specifically the beings of Lovecraft. It's therefore total
WP:SYNTH and an unencyclopedic list of fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm amazed this article even exists. All that the entries have in common is the words "old one". JIP | Talk 17:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no reason exists for deletion. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Sock of banned user [reply]
Delete- Per zxcvbnm. This is badly sourced cruft with nothing to tie it together but a similarity of naming. Reyk _YO! 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing but a collection of times the phrase "old one" was used in fiction, most of which being completely unrelated to one another. This is complete
WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments I turned the redirect Old One here into a dab page based on articles starting with "Old One". Also, a very similiar concept is explained at Elder race. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sguerek's new dab page is quite sufficient. (I've retargeted Old Ones there.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Lovecraft was the most influential horror author since Poe, we do not need to list every single time a writer used the term "Old One". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary concept at best. No evidence this term has been analyzed by scholars of literature or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:22, 5 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. czar 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adeerus Ghayan

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 25 November 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)} 16:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 2 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-deleted (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Sohooli

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

Fails

WP:GNG, I can't find any independent or reliable sources. Andrew Base (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete no
WP:CSD#A7. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A
talk) 16:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is just more vanity spam. Should have been A7'd. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (A7): Previously rejected at AfC but loaded to mainspace. No references, just images uploaded by the subject to DeviantArt, which are completely inadequate for basic
WP:GNG. (I am also tagging for CSD A7.) AllyD (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per A7. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 2 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 The Outer Limits episodes. A transwiki can be done at editorial discretion; the proposed target is not part of Wikimedia so we can't apply a consensus from here to there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matters (The Outer Limits)

)

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

Like the vast majority of Outer Limits (1995) episodes, this article fails

WP:N, and has been tagged as such for over a decade. My previous attempts to batch-redirect such articles to the LoE were contentious (see Talk:List_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes from 2008), and ended with my large-scale un-redirecting all episode articles. Now, I'd like to revisit this issue and again batch-redirect all of them, but I want/need a cite-worthy AfD result for the edit summary to make the redirects stick (unless, of course, individual notability is/gets established). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless notability can be established. Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the red link at https://theouterlimits.fandom.com/wiki/Seasons_(1995-2002) , then redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom and TTN. Piotrus' solution is also fine.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 9 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) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Inside Out Films

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

This is a production company that has had one joint-production, notable documentary. Based on my

notable

.

Of the sources:

1 is an
interview
which doesn't mention the company, only the founder.
2 & 4 doesn't mention the company, nor the founder.
3 & 12 are repeated and only mentions the founder, not the company
5 & 6 will not let me look at them
7 is a short bio about the founder, no mention of the company
8 & 10 only mentions founder, no mention of the company
9 is a directory listing
11 is the only reference that talks about the company, however it is only two sentences.

Notability is not inherited. The film, Forever Pure, may be notable. The founder, Geoff Arbourne may be notable (I have not done any research into that claim). However, I do not believe Inside Out Films is notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 2 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rabelani Dagada

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

Dagaba's article lacks notability. He has been a candidate for parliament and mayor and an eventual MMC (Member of the Mayoral Committee) for Finance. All these positions do not necessarily guarantee him an article, therefore it fails

WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Joburg is obviously a large and important enough city that we would likely accept articles about its actual city councillors, simply serving on a municipal committee is not sufficient to pass NPOL. Of the 54 footnotes here, he's the bylined author of 16 of them that I've noticed so far — so that's 30 per cent of the sourcing kicked to the curb right there. (He's also likely the author of some of the others, because at least two other sources I've spotchecked are "letters to the editor" that are written in the first person, but fail to have mentioned the name "Rabelani Dagada" before they paywall me.) Several more are
WP:SPA with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic but Rabelani Dagada himself — so this has all the classic hallmarks of being self-promotion even if I can't prove that outright. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 3 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 per multiple CSD rationales as pointed out below. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Rhombus of Hate

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

Failed PROD. Article is not properly

reliable sources supporting such a distinction. Barkeep^Chat 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Barkeep^Chat 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This appears to be an
WP:G3. Two different web searches brought up only the Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete I concur. A clear speedy under A11 and/or G3.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a
WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 2 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 Mr. Magoo (TV series). Stuff may be merged over at editorial discretion, as it's not clear in this discussion whether we have a consensus for a plain merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cat

)

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

Unlikly this article reaches the criteria for notability; it would likely be better off in the "Characters" section of Mr. Magoo. CoconutOctopus talk 12:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I never knew Mr Magoo had a cat. I think it is not sufficiently notable for it's own article. A merge into Mr. Magoo would be ideal. I notice his dog, as being present, has only one sentence to describe him.scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any evidence that the cat is independently notable, and there is little more in this article that isn't in Mr. Magoo (TV series). Incidentally, I think that article should be moved to Mr. Magoo (2019 TV series) and Mr. Magoo (TV series) either DABbed or redirected to Mister Magoo, as the 1960s series is more likely what people expect to see with that title. Spike 'em (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly vague name, no notability. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Mr. Magoo'. The article on the cat is only a brief one and it probably belongs in the Mr. Magoo article. Vorbee (talk) 15:28, 2 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 keep.

WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ribon Original

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

NO Wikipedia:Notability, basically NO sources, it even says it was cancelled to poor sales, showing its IRRELEVANCY Palmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:22, 2 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 keep.

WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Young You

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

NOT notable, as evidenced by barely ANY sources Palmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 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 keep.

WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Super Jump

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

Super Jump is NOT notable as evidenced by the almost complete lack of sources Palmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also its made by

WP:Paid editingPalmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 2 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 keep.

WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hobby's Jump

)

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

Not even a SHRED of notability, laughably

WP:UNSOURCED Palmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Also its made by

WP:Paid editing Palmer Clive Alive (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 2 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. Any decision to rename this article may happen through the

normal process. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Rootless Cosmopolitans

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

1990 album. Lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources and does not meet NALBUM. Author contested PROD and added sources. Here is my analysis of the sources in the current version:

artist's website
looks like a SPS, not RS
interview with the artist
may be significant coverage, but is a dead link
brief mention, not SIGCOV
one-man website/blog, not RS

Before I PRODed this, I looked on Google Books and could only find trivial mentions. So, at best one source that would count towards establishing notability.

If not deleted outright, it should be redirected to the artist. b uidhe 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated the Allmusic album review to its current location (item 4 in the analysis above). AllyD (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: with probably the google books reference you alluded to, he did call it a "notable record" if you cared to look DISEman (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the analysis above, the nominator acknowledged that Brian Olewnick's Allmusic review could be significant coverage: I think it is. The album also received a (lukewarm) review by Tony Herrington in
WP:NALBUM criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- OK, so we have only two sources that potentially give significant coverage: the one-paragraph review from Allmusic (not sure if that counts as significant) and the Wire review. Calling something "notable" is not a substitute for significant coverage, and two sources are usually not enough to keep an article. b uidhe 20:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a third critical source, the Gary Giddons article which DISEman added since your nomination, which describes it "a notable record". AllyD (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted, but if it is to be kept it should be under the title
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes indeed. When I first saw this item in the AfD index I assumed it to be one of those Wiktionary vs Wikipedia debates for an article on the political term. I was surprised to find an album as the primary use. Not something to change during an AfD but if the article survives it should be given a more specific title as
Phil Bridger suggests. AllyD (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I've added part of a review from WP:NALBUM criterion 1. (On the title, 'Rootless cosmopolitans' redirects to 'Rootless cosmopolitan'; use of the capital 'C' is required to get to the album. That seems reasonable.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:29, 3 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 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Clayton

Mark E. Clayton (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)

Most likely fails
wp:POLOUTCOMES. Subject hasn't even held office; only major instances of received coverage are unsuccessfully running for US senate in 2012 and unsuccessfully suing the Tennessee Democratic Party for not allowing him to run for governor. Would suggest a redirect to 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee Bneu2013 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also of note is that this article has been nominated for deletion before (when the article was under a different name). Bneu2013 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. No evidence of having done anything else that achieved any note - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Fails
WP:POLITICIAN as Clayton has only ever been a candidate and has not held national or sub-national political offices. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have to admit I am sick and tired of the SPLC being treated as a reliable source, when it throws around the label of "hate" on anyone who it disagrees with, with no regard to the general understanding that hate groups encourage actual violence. Having your own party turn against you after you get the nomination is not a sign of notability, it is a one time news event, and not enough to make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a discussion about whether or not SPLC is a reliable source. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I'm not terribly convinced that quibbling over the definition of hate speech is the determinative issue here — queers get the final mic drop on what is or isn't anti-queer hate speech, and non-queers do not get to put us in the corner on the grounds that they somehow understand what we actually have to go through better than we do ourselves. But that's not really the determining factor: what's more dispositive here, rather, is that the sources show little evidence of enduring nationalized significance that would somehow make his candidacy more special than all the other unsuccessful candidacies in the history of politics. Out of fourteen sources total, eight are the purely expected level of local coverage that every candidate in every election can always show without fail, two more are
ten-year test for enduring notability. This is just not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for federal office. In general, basic (and reliably-sourced) information about the candidates can be included in a page about the election. In addition, and generally speaking, an individual must meet
WP:GNG outside of their campaign or receive national or international coverage that is significantly greater than normal (see Christine O'Donnell). --Enos733 (talk) 17:05, 3 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. czar 09:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidroom

Bidroom (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)

Looks like a garden variety
WP:ROUTINE coverage of 'start seeks funding/startup gets funding, wants more/company does business'. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
(T) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep as this is a travel website that is quite notable with sufficient coverage. Needs expanding on sources but definitely not deletion. WikiAviator (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Said coverage is all reprinted/rewritten press releases. Even this piece in The Guardian is, if you actually read it, not very impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP. Corporate spam.
WP:TNT at best. Kacper IV (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
(T) 11:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - G11 material - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 3 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalungady

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

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

Unsourced since creation in Sept 2017. A previous article was deleted by PROD in March2017, then this was re-created by apparently the same editor, and has not been improved since then. An "external link" to http://www.kalungady.com was recently added and removed but appears to be "Tamil Christian site", not a reliable source or an appropriate external link. This place is shown on maps as existing, but without further sourced information the article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. The Catherine Booth Hospital makes no mention of Kalungady: its own website says it is at "Vadasery, Nagercoil". PamD 08:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to nomination:
Catherine Booth Hospital website giving address as "Asambu road, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu", nomention of Kalungady.

Kalungady is not mentioned in any other article in the encyclopedia to which this name could be redirected. PamD 08:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". My search shows it mentioned in a book about missionary activities in this area, in in Indian census records (but not as a census tract), in an Indian government gazette, and in a list of monuments. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I thank FOARP for finding the above refs, none of them indicate what type of location this is. Doesn't appear to be a legally recognized place, but rather some type of congregation or monument. Certainly none of the claims in the article are supported. As I was back in 2017, am completely willing to change to a keep if some valid sourcing showing that it passes
WP:GEOLAND is uncovered, but as of yet, I'm not seeing it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The gazette and census entries show legal recognition, hence this remains a pass for
WP:GEOLAND. The present state of the article is not decisive of deletion as AFD is not clean-up. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, they show it in use as part of an address, in both cases: the census lists "Kalungady West 1-33A" alongside "Arat Road 69-74". No indication that it is a standalone place. PamD 08:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Currently appears to be a suburb of Nagercoil. May once have been a village in its own right, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
(T) 11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If this orphan article is deleted now it can be re-created in future if
Reliable sources are found which confirm its existence as a populated place and any other information about it. PamD 08:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- Still no indication of what exactly this locality is. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a
WP:GEOLAND fail. Not legally recognized and no reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The Census of India produces no results for a search of both Kalungady and the alternate spelling Kalunkady. I can't direct-link the results because of how their website works, but you can search for yourself here: Census of India search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 10 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 discussion seems to have started going round in circles here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barcia

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

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

Nominating this for deletion due to the subject matter not being notable by himself. Also the reference used for the article is from a unreliable source according to the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the link and it is to IGN now, which is a reliable source for gaming news. And being the founder of Simtex is definitely notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN link still cites N-Sider, which makes the link an unreliable source. GamerPro64 15:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you understand how sourcing works. That article sourced direct interviews with relevant people. IGN is not going to publish incorrect information. Flag this article as needing more sources if you must, but this is definitely not delete worthy. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is actual consensus with the Video Game Project to not use these types of articles. All the way back in 2011. GamerPro64 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree with outright banning a whole news source. Its not hard to look at the article itself and evaluate it for what it is. And regardless, I just added another source to the page, which actually only added to the notability of the subject. He apparently was in charge of the development of Metroid Prime. Since both your notability and reliability claim have been addressed, I am removing the flag for deletion. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works at all. Once the discussion is closed, and if the article is kept THEN it can be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not realize that. After doing some more reading on the process I am going to suggest for a speedy keep of the article and for the nominator to withdraw their deletion request. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather get a consensus on whether this should stay up or get deleted. GamerPro64 19:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to edit your reason why then, as what you have there currently is incorrect. You have to justify why it is still up for deletion with the new changes taken into account. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question is no longer used in the article. I've added six sources to the article now, two of which directly replace the spot where the questionable one was located. So since both the notability and reliability concerns have been completely addressed, I believe that the original complaints around this article are now invalid. I am officially switching my vote to Speedy Keep on this one. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the six sources? It would help determine if the article should be kept if we know if the new sources are reliable or not.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article from Polygon, two from Gamespot, one from IGN, and one from Business Wire. Also through in a published book. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
(T) 11:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Still Keep~~ Confused why this has been relisted. It's pretty obviously notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) STRIKING 2ND !VOTE. Britishfinance (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company may be notable but he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Five sources directly related to the guy isn't enough to make him notable? You gotta support your argument there a bit. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:35, 3 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) 23:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fox (Welsh politician)

Peter Fox (Welsh politician) (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. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual is a non-notable local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis he's not a run-of-the-mill local politician, having been the leader of a major local government authority for over 10 years and has been awarded an
OBE for his services to local government. He would certainly meet point 2 of N:POL, even having a TV documentary crew following him around. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

An OBE is a higher honour than I have ever received, but consensus has been pretty clear that this is a lower level than that required to pass
Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. County council is not an automatic free pass to notability in the absence of evidence that he's special in some way — passing the "major local political figures" test requires a lot more than just a small handful of hits of purely routine local coverage. The article does not actually note or source that he's had "a TV documentary crew following him around"; that could maybe change the equation if the documentary were significant in some way, but isn't a guaranteed free pass just because you assert it, because even documentaries are sometimes unimportant and non-notable under our notability criteria for films. (Plus, until you name and source the existence of the documentary, we have no way of verifying whether it was about him, or just asked him a couple of questions as a speaker in a film about something else.) And as for the OBE, well, we don't have any consensus that low-level honours constitute an exemption from having to pass regular notability and sourcing standards either. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do have consensus that OBEs don't make people notable. ミラ P 05:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council not a notable position. And Bearcat has articulated the deletion rationale well. Wm335td (talk) 21:41, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ana James

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

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

Does not appear to pass
WP:MUSICBIO or GNG. Deprodded by User:Paora with "has toured nationally, e.g. in NZ with NZ Opera and in UK with Glyndebourne on Tour" but is this sufficient? I don't think so, MUSICBIO suggests subject needs to receive significant coverage of such tours, and this is missing here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to
WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I have expanded, updated, and re-referenced the article with reviews of her performances. However, this is a rather borderline case. Normally, for opera singers we consider two or more performances in major roles with leading opera companies to be sufficient. But in this case, she has smaller roles with a leading company (
Glyndebourne Festival. She appears to be no longer very active as an opera singer. I cannot find any performances since about 2013. On her LinkedIn page, she describes herself as a "Freelance Opera Singer/Singing teacher". See also her entry at Operabase. It's empty. Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:TOOSOON)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
too soon. She had an eleven-year career, and ended up singing leading roles internationally. So I've come off the fence. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - She fails both
talk) 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment According to her biography on the [ROH website] she sang several leading roles in at least five countries. In my opinion, this is notable, if the productions can be identified. --OrestesLebt (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added three recordings with notable orchestras and conductors. One is of the rare opera The Proms, the third, I quatro rusteghi was the critic's choice in Opera News. For me, that tips the scale in favor of keeping. --OrestesLebt (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Thanks for that OrestesLebt, plus your addition of the performance as Konstanze with the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra. I've added a 4th recording, the DVD of The Marriage of Figaro at the ROH (Critics' Choice at Gramophone). That's enough to tip the scale. Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on revisions made by
talk) 05:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sufficient work has been done to the article to merit notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per
WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of extra references to show that she passes notability for opera singers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 6 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
not a vote but an exercise in consensus there is a consensus to address this non-notable topic by merging it into another article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities

List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling 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)

No evidence this passes
WP:LISTN. See also arguments presented in related, and already ended with 'delete', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 2 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} 10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or selective merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial, in-universe list. Notability for the group is not established. TTN (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The individual gods listed here are not individually notable. Searching for sources discussing the concept of Halfling Deities as a group turns up nothing in-depth in any kind of reliable, secondary sources, thus causing the list to fail
WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (as elements don't need to be independently notable) or merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The elements do not need to be independently notable if the grouping is notable, which needs to be shown by having reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group. There do not appear to be any such sources for this list topic. Rorshacma (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or Selective Merge with
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons), as has some relevent material. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- More excessive fancruft sourced mostly to primary sources. Aside from the notability arguments outlined above, this content puts way too much
undue weight on fictional trivia. I suggest Wikia would be a better home for this type of content. And I'm not sure about the accusations of bad faith here: were I to suggest some editors derived malicious pleasure from diluting Wikipedia's useful content with sewage or burying it under a mountain of trash I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI for sure. Reyk _YO! 15:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am sure that some people create hoax articles, attack pages, and the like for fun to upset other people, but although I can only speak for myself, I doubt very much that people create articles on fictional topics with the intention of irritating other people. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure that few people nominate stuff for deletion because they think deleting stuff is fun, yet accusing people of that is just fine and dandy. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak on the motivations of people who like to delete stuff because they think it's fun, but they've certainly been having a good time lately. BOZ (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I get the good feeling of cleaning out a musty old attic full of fifty years of clutter, but the core motivation is narrowing down the scope of non-notable topics so notable topics can actually flourish. See Category:Video game characters and Category:Anime and manga characters. Compared to ten years ago, you can look at the grand majority of articles and see proper sources. There might still be some problem articles, but it's night and day compared to the hundreds upon hundreds of articles there previously. Without an effort from those project spaces, there is no way they'd be in that state today. TTN (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate argument for deletion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, FANCRUFT is another term for
WP:GNG. The content of this and like articles has no independent, reliable sources, that's all there is to it. You want to keep this? Please find a proper scholarly analysis of the significance of D&D halfing deities. I won't be holding my breath, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that "Halfling deities" as a group have any sort of real-life significance. Just because they are a part of a notable game
talk) 10:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to
Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:25, 9 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 "delete" arguments are substantially stronger. They notably invoke
WP:LISTN, as Lightburst argues, the basis of any notability guideline is sourcing. To refute the arguments for deletion, therefore, the "keep" side would have needed to make the argument that specific sources exist that convey notability on this topic. They have not named any such sources, but only asserted that notability exists. These arguments must therefore be discounted as weak, as must those that do not address the notability issue at all or are pure votes. Sandstein 12:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities

List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome 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)

No evidence this passes
WP:LISTN. See also arguments presented in related, and already ended with 'delete', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 2 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} 10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or selective merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)#Religion. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the other lists of D&D gods by fictional race, the individual entries are not notable, and there do no appear to be any substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that discuss the concept as a group. Thus, it fails
WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Grouping fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments for retention of non-secondary sourced material, and accusations of bad faith do not belong in these discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I make no accusations. I merely said that is how it appears to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Piotrus's arguments. This is all badly sourced plot summary that more properly belongs on Wikia. It gives far too much
undue weight to fictional trivia. Reyk _YO! 14:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:CLN. Per the article talk page, this article is already the target of at least four merge and redirects from previous deletion discussions; while the individual entries may not be deserving of their own articles, mention in a list such as this should not be problematic. If the issue with this article is the degree/volume of in-world material, edit to reduce it. AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

CLN is not the golden ticket you’re looking for currently, especially where this list has no associated category. It only supports arguments where someone says a list should be deleted because it already has a category. It supports nothing here. This list neither establishes notability or classifies as a proper fork article. It’s simply fictional minutia that doesn’t need to be covered. There is no argument you can make that this is necessary for a general reader’s comprehension of the topic. This is fan specialty information. TTN (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:LISTN additionally as is pointed out above: Per the article talk page, this article is already the target of at least four merge and redirects from previous deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How in any universe does this establish notability? I disagree with but at least understand people trying to use the argument on the main deities lists, but not these piddly little hyper-focused lists. TTN (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN so far have all been comments on how this list fails it. If you are going to cite it as a reason to Keep, do you have any such sources to support that position? Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Rorshacma:I am not a fan of keeping any of this rubbish, but I was referring to the LISTN guideline There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but how does this list fulfill said "informational, navigation, or development purposes"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Regarding the
WP:ATD outcome. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greyhawk deities

List of Greyhawk 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)

No evidence this passes
WP:LISTN. See also arguments presented in related, and already ended with 'delete', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 2 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} 10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or selective merge to Dragonlance#Deities of Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Greyhawk? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You assume correctly. :) 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Per
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The grouping as a whole fails to establish notability. There is no argument for it as a valid fork. TTN (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly satisfies
WP:LISTN. Also satisfies WP:CLN. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Please tell us more about this 'clearly'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List notability states: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been When I review the citations in this article or review search engines I see notability and coverage for D&D deities in general but also for realms-specific deities. Thus I would not expect many of these individual deities to have articles but this article seems to be the essence of what constitutes a valuable list article for an encyclopedia. In general, the nomination of the individual D&D articles for deletion have more merit than the list articles that are being deleted. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Pointing to a similar article that has been deleted as a reason for deletion of an article is like an obverse of the
WP:OSE argument. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed it is! BOZ (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid list of elements central to a significant fictional setting. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable whether a list of deities is 'central' to this setting more than lists of spells or towns or such which I don't think we have anymore (if we ever had). If you see any literary (gaming) analysis that discusses the deities of Greyhawk, do let us know, but if not, it's just a POV that this is central rather than fancrufty - and overall, either way, let's face it, this is indeed "very minority interest material". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per
WP:CLN (although I would not object to a severe copyedit of the article to reduce overall size and in-world content).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Neither supports the existence of this list. CLN does not require lists for categories. It’s simply seen as a positive thing in general. Editors may come to the consensus that a list is inappropriate. I don’t think there’s a single notable article in the category anyway. The list fails to establish its own notability, and there is no argument on how this list helps a general reader any more than three summary style paragraphs about gods and religion in a main article. It’s content for fans by fans that belongs on a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Josh Milburn. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Regarding the
WP:ATD outcome. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 10 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. What I wrote in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities applies here as well. Sandstein 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance deities

List of Dragonlance 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)

No evidence this passes
WP:LISTN. See also arguments presented in related, and already ended with 'delete', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 2 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} 10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or selective merge to Dragonlance#World. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:LISTN, same as the other deity lists. Entirely a summary of the game's fictional lore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to find any reliable, secondary sources discussing this grouping in any meaningful way, causing it to fail
WP:LISTN. I was going to go with the selective merge as suggested by BOZ above, but looking at the target section, the bit of information that I would have suggested merging there is already present, negating the need to do so. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not notable as a group. No rationale for it to be a valid fork article. TTN (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or MERGE to List of Dragonlance characters. The deities in this book are significant characters who do interact with the rest of the characters in some of the books. The main article says there are over 190 novels now. Dream Focus 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid list of elements central to a significant fictional setting. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable, as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per
WP:CLN (although I would not object to a severe copyedit of the article to reduce the size and degree of in-game content).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability for the list is neither established or inherited. CLN in no way mandates lists, so I’m really not sure why people are trying to bandwagon that as a thing. The only thing it defends is an argument that a category/list should be deleted because a list/category already exists. Even if it did, this category in particular is ready to be upmerged to the character category anyway due to its two articles makeup. TTN (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN.Kacper IV (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Regarding the
WP:ATD outcome. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Binkowski

Don Binkowski (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)

Serious concerns about the subject meeting NBIO. Does not seem to meet
WP:NPROF (next to no citations, most works self-published through Xlibris). Thoughts? I think this really hinges on whether we can identify more details about what position he held in the Michigan Legislature and whether it would meet NPOLITICIAN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was not in the state legislature, he was a delegate to the state constitutional convention. He was on the Michigan Labor Mediation Board from 1962-1963, but that does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He hardly looks WP-notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he has a couple of factors for notable lawyers, but both the level of work he did as a judge and councilman and the coverage were local. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 4 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. I'm finding a delete consensus here as several editors believe notability is not met, one has a keep !vote, and one (Mdd) has given an indepth analysis of the sources and their limitations. However, if Mdd or some other editor wants me a copy of the article in an attempt to do a rewrite and demonstrate notability please email me and I would be happy to provide. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sjardijn

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Martin Sjardijn

Articles for deletion/Martin Sjardijn (2nd nomination)

Martin Sjardijn (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, promo The Banner talk 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment The English version doesn't look great, nor the French version. I can't read Polish - does
WP:BEFORE shows a flat zero results for Sjardijn on Google News, doesn't look good at all - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the sources cited in the Polish article are actually in Polish, so there's no real need to understand the language to make a judgement - just Dutch and English.
Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the only coverage I can find is that he has a Wikipedia page. Article is entirely promotional. Even the bloated external links section does not contain any independent sources.
talk) 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed to Keep based on the (old!) article sources mentioned by MDD below. We should at least link these from the talk page, if not add them to the actual article.
talk) 02:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The Wikipedia page is indeed promotional because it is focussed on one of the idea's of this elder artists, which for some reason he wants to keep promoting. Both the page, the primary sources mentioned, and the links added, focus on promoting this one idea: the Weightless Sculpture Project.
Now the artist is retired and the ordinary Google sources doesn't give us much to work with. However if you read the arguments of the first AfD nomination from 2006, I think those arguments still hold. This artist has initiated a series of representation in national newspapers since the 1970s, see here, and a small series of magazine articles, see here. There are at least a dozen longer articles from secondary sources with some significant coverage of his work.
Take for example his first mayor newspaper article "Fantasiedorpen bouwen met de hele buurt" in the Nieuwe Leidsche Courant in 1971, see here. There is half a page of coverage of his "Werkgroep Speelbouw" initiative, which he started with Nout Visser. There are over the years about another dozen of similar initiatives by this artist, which drew some regional, national and international attention. All together he never had a world wide break through, but he did play some notable role in the development of the computer art in the Netherlands as artist, as teacher in several institutes, and a contractor for several museums. -- Mdd (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist who does not meet our inclusion criteria. I can only wish those criteria had been enforced back in 2006, then the project would not be so littered with not updated articles on marginal people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have been copied form kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae Vexations (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Note: the article cannot have been copied from that URL because it predates the existance of academia.edu. Vexations (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the links provided by Mdd, it is possible to see that there is significant coverage of this artist in NRC Handelsblad (1987 [8], and shorter in 1986 [9] and 1994 [10]); in Het Binnenhof [nl] [11], [12]; in Beeldraad (1993) [13]; and in Stroom (1993) [14]. Some of the articles mentioned by Mdd are by Martin Sjardijn, and therefore don't contribute to his notability. I would not expect someone who was active in the pre-internet years to appear in Google News, but rather in archived news sources such as those given above. It will need someone with knowledge of Dutch to add them to the article as cited sources - as they aren't accompanied by text versions of their contents, it's not possible (without a lot of effort) to use Google Translate. A quick skim does show, though, that they verify information in the article such as his training at the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague, where he also later taught (not yet in the article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native Dutch speaker, so I'll have a go at explaining what is in the sources. [15] is description of a proposed artwork and interview with the artists for the occasion of an exhibition at what is now called Kunstmuseum Den Haag. The articles discusses a simulation that is run in the nl:Omniversum and explains how Sjardijn's proposal for a line in space was rejected by a funding body for art in public space and evolved into a failed proposal to centennial of the Eifeltower, a space mirror. In the interview, Sjardijn claims that "the transsimulative road that I travel has incredible potential." He's encourgaed by the response from Christo and others, and seems to think that the project can be realized for 5 million gulden (approx. € 4 M today), excluding the cost of the launch.

[16] is an exhibition review of a group show in the Jaarbeurs to which Sjardijn contributed a work called tijd bestaat niet (en: time does not exist): " Translation: It is composed of discs that rotate against each other bearing markings that indicate the universe and an earth clock with a seconds hand. The whole makes clear that our timekeeping ceases to be logical and obvious. Moreover, the work looks attractive.

[17] has a brief mention of Sjardijn's spacemirror in a discussion of an Bulletin Board System that provides access to an art database. "One press on the button and be my telematic lover tonight" of Lubbers himself, "Spacemirror 1986" by Martin Sjardijn or selfpromotional earring by Sander Kessels are in your own personal computer."

[18] and [19] are of such poor resolution that the article (continued from the front page) is very difficult to read.

[20] is a review of a commision for an artwork that is installed in a primary school. Unfortunately, it is not bylined and gives no indication of when and where it was published. On sjardijn's website, there is a link to the copy of the article with the anchot text "Stroom Journal 3 - Sculptuur voor de Buitenaardse Ruimte - 1993" I'm fairly certain that that is a reference to a publication by nl:Stroom Den Haag, an organization that provides funding for public sculpture.

[21] is about a collective, established in 1970, that created a playground in Voorburg and mentions Sjardijn as one of the members. He provides some quotes for the article and explains how the group's starting point is participation by the youth for whom the playground is built. Translation: "Unfortunately, this method was not entirely possible with our project. The garden is not used by children from a certain neighborhood. Who should you ask for help? We have overcome this handicap by involving the young users in the construction of the sculpture."

I can't find a discussion of his teaching in any of the sources mentioned above, but https://www.haagsekunstenaars.nl/cv/665 that he was a docent at the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague(2007–2009) and University of Amsterdam (2000–2005) Vexations (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you,
WP:NARTIST, which requires the person to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources, that are reviews of works he created, don't add up to enough or probably aren't independent (so even if we could read the unreadable one, it would still not be enough to establish notability). So I have struck my Keep vote and changed to Delete. If Mdd can show other significant coverage about him and his work, not by him, in independent, reliable sources, I would be happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non notable, fails
talk) 06:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment by Mdd

After studying this case some more I have concluded, that this article is outdated. If it was up to me, the current four tags will be replaced by one tag, and the article would be kept online for a certain period for half year or so. Then it can be either improved or can be moved out of the main space. I noticed:

This article has been written by the Martin Sjardijn himself and/or people close to him on the Dutch Wikipedia early 2005 [22], [23], and has been translated here by the similar people in june 2006 [24], [25]

The professional artist Martin Sjardijn has had a respectable career as artist in multiple ways:
As conceptual artist being one of the first to present the idea of art in space in The Netherlands since the 1980s;

As a teacher at the
TU Delft and The Haque art academy
;

As co-founder of the notable art center the nl:Haags Centrum voor Actuele Kunst (The Haque Center for Actual Art) ;

As designer with the French Group Ludic and the Dutch Werkgroep Speelbouw early 1970s;

As sub contractor for the The Hague nl:Omniversum in the 1980s presenting one of the first VR animations in the Netherlands.

As subcontractor for the Groninger Museum experimenting and presenting one of the first digitalized museum configurations in the Netherlands.

As family man raising a son as an artist, which made a notable entrance in the art world; An another probably daughter (?) who made some interesting contributions, which was represented in the media as well; and his later partner is a notable writer as well

As son of an amateur painter, whose early work and later work was exhibited in the region and draw some attention.

As writer, public speaker, designer of websites and other installations he made some contributions as well.

Beside the series of 25+ hits in national newspapers for 1972 to 1995 [26], and a dozen longer magazine articles on his work, this gives us enough independent secondary sources, beside the many primary sources to build a respectable Wiki article.

There is not a single argument brought forward, why this artist give the circumstances should fail
WP:GNG
. The current article evidently doesn't give us enough information about secondary source to determine this for ourselves.

The http://kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae is not that old. The http://kabk.academia.edu website seem to be online since 2010 [27]

Around every source mentioned early there are indeed dozens of other sources, that either confirm or sometimes contradict the information. It would be a mistake to think, that these are not independent. The Netherlands is a small country and if artists are still alive, it is often custom to involve them one way or another. Bold statements as "Hagenaar als eerste met kunst in the ruimte" (person from The Haque the first with art in space) are on the account of the news paper and the news reporter, that wrote down his name. They are accountable here for this news, and their reputation is on the line.

A longer article about Martin Sjardijn and the development of his work will give us a unique inside in fifty years of development of the art scene in The Hague. Keeping this article on line here a little longer might be an invitation for people to go an extra mile here. this could benefit us all. -- Mdd (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 01:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
yep. Verifiable sources would be a long way to a convincing argument - David Gerard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mdd, I'm puzzled by your claim that Sjardijn taught at the TU Delft, and it raises concerns for me about the verifiability if your other claims. Even Sjardijn himself doesn't claim that he taught there in the deletion discussion on the article about him in the Dutch Wikipedia [28] even though he discusses his teaching positions elsewhere. Can you show us the sources that support your claims? That would go a long way. Vexations (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, my comment intends to give an overview of his work and impact... and I might have missed a detail or two. I for example didn't notice yet, that he was teacher of Virtual Realities at the University of Amsterdam, see here. In the Dutch article it was stated that "Op de Technische Universiteit Delft experimenteerde hij onder leiding van prof. dr. ir. Erik Jansen." The saying "onder leiding van" generally means he was employed there. -- Mdd (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mdd, Sorry, no an uncited statement in the Dutch Wikipedia (the claim is pretty much a verbatim copy of his CV, which also says "Op de Technische Universiteit Delft experimenteerde hij onder leiding van prof. dr. ir. Erik Jansen en ir. Jouke Verlinden met een Head Mounted Display van virtuallity verbonden met een tactile force feedback dataglove.") doesn't mean it can be reliably verified with independent sources that he taught there at all. Vexations (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have seen http://www.sjardijn.com/doc/cv.html . He was teacher for five years at the Vrije Academie Den Haag, and for five years at the University of Amsterdam. The exact nature of his cooperation at the TU Delft is still unclear. -- Mdd (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mdd, Even if "the exact nature of his cooperation at the TU Delft is still unclear": Can we agree that he was not a a full professor anywhere, ever. and not assistant professor nl:Universitair docent at the TU Delft? And can we also agree that WP:PROF applies, and that the fact that he taught at the Vrije Academie and the UVA does not make him notable unless we have several independent sources that discuss his work as a teacher in-depth, and that, as it stands, we do not have these sources? Vexations (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postdoctoral. This work was in the 1990s, and lots of sources from those days cannot be found online. I wonder in return if you have done the math about the assessment I gave about your 30 Nov 2019 comment? -- Mdd (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Mdd, I wonder in return if you have done the math about the assessment I gave about your 30 Nov 2019 comment? I don't understand what you're asking me. On 30 November I wrote that the article appears to have been copied from his CV. What is it that you'd like me to do? Vexations (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to have assumed, that the writer of this article copy/pasted the text from the kabk.academia.edu, a website which started in 2010. The particular CV on that website will be published there after 2010. Now the Wikipedia article, we have here, was created in 2006. To be more precise, the kabk.academia.edu biography seem to be an copy of the 22 March 2021 version of the Wikipedia article. Your assumption seems to be incorrect. -- Mdd (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mdd, I think you mean 2012, not 2021. Alright, when I noticed the similarities between the CV and the Wikipedia article, I did not check the date of creation of http://kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae. I still can't tell from the web page itself when it was created, or where the text originated. The earliest version of the article that is nearly identical that I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Sjardijn&oldid=75209409. That version of the article must be older than the version I found on academia.edu because Academia.edu was launched two years later, in 2008. The academia.org version is not the source. I'll strike my claim that it is a copyvio of that particular Curriculum Vitae.

I do think it is unusual that an CV is a copy of a Wikipedia article, but I cannot prove that the CV was created first, and copied to the article. I also cannot prove that user:Sjardijn, who edited the article, is the subject. I'm failrly confident that IP 62.216.11.44, who first removed the {{notability}} tag is Sjardijn, per "Message from Martin Sjardijn: Please have some patience, I don't know how to chat or talk with you, Dutch arthistorians will inform you soon..." in this diff and that the art historian in question is likely J.L. (Hans) Locher whose comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Sjardijn was posted by that same IP 62.216.11.44.

In summary: I think that Sjardijn has written or substantially contributed to his own bio. That in itself is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern about the neutral point of view, and the verifiabililty of the claims made in the article. Vexations (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vexations, earlier sayings and your summary gives us a common ground: There are concerns about puffery, notability and verifiability as David Gerard brought forward 3.5 months ago [29], and a conflict of interest (COI) and concerns about the neutral point of view (NPOV) as assumed here.
I think the COI-NPOV concerns are for real here. For example, in the latest updates 2017-19 we read that In 2019 he started as a novelist and he added novelist, poetry writer to the introduction. We have an artist, who is (still) using Wikipedia as his personal website to update us about his latest news.
I personally think, the initial article was to much of an explanation, and still is. It might be possible here to give a more proper description, but I think, the article should be practically rewritten from scratch. In order to do so, I think it is crucial to have a common understanding of whether or not this artist is notable of not (to be continued). -- Mdd (talk) 12:50, 9 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bećirović twins

Bećirović twins (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 sportsbio (of two individuals who should be at the very list split into separate pages) has some trouble passing
WP:REDFLAG is that this event does not appear notable enough to pass SPORTBIO qualifications. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitsu International Federation (JJIF) is recognised federation by International Olympic Committee. They are negotiating to be at Olympic games. They are on same level as for example Karate. They have big chance to be at Olympics especialy with ne-waza style (Brazilian jiu-jitsu). Bećirović twins are top athlete of this sport. They were participated at World Games which is I guess significant sports event. For me they are notable sportsmen. I am not a manager who is trying to put on wikipedia his clients like some pro-sport managers does. I really missed this stuff (sport jujitsu) on wikipedia and I am sure that I am not alone.S048linari — Preceding unsigned comment added by S048linari (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After going through the
WP:COI issue it should be disclosed, but it wouldn't impact notability in this case. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Papaursa.scope_creep^Talk 09:33, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martyna Bierońska

Martyna Bierońska (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 sportsbio has some trouble passing
WP:REDFLAG is that this event does not appear notable enough to pass SPORTBIO qualifications. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitsu International Federation (JJIF) is recognised federation by International Olympic Committee. They are negotiating to be at Olympic games. They are on same level as for example Karate. They have big chance to be at Olympics especialy with ne-waza style (Brazilian jiu-jitsu). Martyna Bierońska was top athlete of this sport. She was participated at World Games which is I guess significant sports event. For me she is notable sportsman. I am not a manager who is trying to put on wikipedia his clients like some pro-sport managers does. I really missed this stuff (sport jujitsu) on wikipedia and I am sure that I am not alone.S048linari

Comment The results listed in the article's infobox look impressive, but I have no idea what world championships she was competing in. The recognized world championships by the International Judo Federation do not match the years and locations given nor is she listed among the 139,000 judoka at judoinside.com . There is also no mention of her at the IBJJF website, which includes results of all IBJJF world championships. Some reporting of results, especially local coverage, doesn't make the case for meeting
WP:GNG. I'm not voting yet, so that additional supporting evidence for her notability can be presented. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Upon further research I see she competed at the JJIF events (jiu-jitsu as opposed to judo). For those unfamiliar with martial arts organizations, there are often multiple ones in the same, or closely related, sport. The JJIF is focused on sport ju-jitsu and has no authority over any of the traditional Japanese jujutsu organizations. It's also unrelated to the IBJJF (the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation founded by the Gracies). Having said all that, I think her success at the JJIF world championships is sufficient to show WP notability. It would have been much better to have specified the organization right from the start. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IBJJF have different focus. They organise competitons for Pro-Teams. Grapplers there are representing their teams (fighting clubs) not a country they are from or live. JJIF is main governing sport body for sport jujitsu and its competition of nations. They do good job last few years (5).S048linari 08:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I agree. I looked at this several times, thought it was a keeper but couldn't prove it. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 4 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. It looks like uncontested claims of notability appeared during the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Vergel

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

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

Advertorialized
reliable source coverage about her, and not making any particularly strong notability claims once you discount the advertorialized "most experienced and effective" fluff. And checking the article history, there has never been a better-referenced version to revert back to, either -- this has literally existed for ten full years in this garbage state, so if it can't be neutralized with legitimate sources right away it needs to go. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Fixed all the issues mentioned by the nomination. She used to be very famous in the local television back in the 90s. Anything else you want to edit? Feel free to comment now.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references haven't been updated and they don't support a keep.scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean by not updated? Okay, I'll take a look again.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also edited the article a bit. I believe that she does meet
WP:GNG as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The cleanup has shown that she meets
WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 8 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Venright

Steve Venright (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)

Semi-advertorialized
WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole good source I could find was this one on BBC Mundo. SIGCOV might be out there, but based on my search I did not see it.
talk) 05:10, 2 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. Speedy keep to Snow Keep Early close. Professor in a named chair.
(non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Anne Harrington

Anne Harrington (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. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A totally inadequate nomination that deserves a
WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Speedy keep per
WP:AUTHOR (searching JSTOR for her name finds many reviews of her books) and give BeenAroundAWhile some side-eye for nominating three highly-notable female academics for deletion in quick succession. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: I'm with Xxanthippe on the
trout slap. This subject holds a named chair at one of the world's most prestigious universities -- what the pluperfect hell? This wouldn't be acceptable for a newcomer, but for a veteran nom with over 80,000 edits, this is mindboggling. I was likewise about to look at the nom's other recent AfDs. Ravenswing 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow keep: I have added her most recent book, referenced to substantial review articles in The Atlantic and the New York Times earlier this year. The subject meets the
WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5 by virtue of her named chair. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boldog

Boldog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [31])

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

Survived AfD's in 2006 and 2011 mostly because the works of the Tolkiens were considered to be enough to pass
WP:GNG since there's no notability of this Boldog outside of the Tolkien works. Hog Farm (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm not 100% for sure I put this one in here right. It's the articles 3rd nom, and I had some trouble understanding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instructions for second or third noms for the same page. Can someone who understands how to do that check to make sure this is correct? Sorry, Hog Farm (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — a minor character in a minor work. It seems really wrong that Wikipedia prioritises this fictional non-entity over two real municipalities.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is pretty much entirely in-universe information about a very minor character, and while it may tenuously comply with
WP:PLOT it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. MDDevice^talk 05:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien trivia, fails
WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is another piece of rubbish that has no place on Wikipedia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, bury in the middle of the earth and replace with a dab page (aside from the two places, there's also István Boldog). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual Tolkien fancruft with nothing but primary sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:17, 5 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. Keep to speedy keep. Clearly passes
(non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Eleonora Patacchini

Eleonora Patacchini (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 here beyond what is expected of any academic. No distinctive awards, no special prizes, nothing in the popular press. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes
WP:PROF#1 with an h-index of 33. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Speedy Keep per above. Again
WP:NPROF is there for a reason. Please try to understand it. This is the third plain wrong AfD or notability tag you've posted for this set of economists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:PROF #C1 and give BeenAroundAWhile some side-eye for nominating three highly-notable female academics for deletion in quick succession. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Seriously? Passes NPROF and the GNG with flying colors. Ravenswing 07:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor at a major university. Passes
WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 12:14, 2 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. Keep to Strong Keep to Snow Keep. Early close. Shambolic Afd rationale. No need to keep it open to waste further time.
(non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jill Rubery

Jill Rubery (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)

She has won no awards nor done anything of notice beyond what is expected of a working scholar. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sigh. She's an elected fellow of the British Academy - "Election as a Fellow of the British Academy recognises high scholarly distinction". That satisfies
WP:NPROF and what constitutes an award if you are to avoid making regrattable mistakes like this again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes
WP:NPROF#1, having an h-index of 68. I advise the nominator to take a look at other AfDs on academics as they are a specialised area of AfD that can be hard to understand. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Fellow of the British Academy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of
WP:Prof. It is hard to understand this AfD nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep per
WP:AUTHOR (searching JSTOR for her name finds many reviews of her books) and give BeenAroundAWhile some side-eye for nominating three highly-notable female academics for deletion in quick succession. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: Seriously twice? A Fellow of the Academy? This string of shambolic nominations, from a veteran editor with tens of thousands of edits, blows holes through
WP:BEFORE and is verging on bad faith. I strongly advise the nom to cease them at once before matters escalate to ANI. Ravenswing 07:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow Keep @BeenAroundAWhile:. I advise you stop to examine your actions carefully. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 2 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.
(non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Charlotte Zucker

Charlotte Zucker (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 actress.
WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 24 November 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? 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her roles were slightly more substantial than those of her husband (also an AfD candidate), they were still minor and only in films made by her sons, David and Jerry Zucker. She gets some coverage in books about their films, but all that I found still revolves around her sons. Any such coverage including her would be more at home in the David and Jerry Zucker articles. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have started adding sources and info to the article. One, an article in a Canadian paper in 1994, describes her as "this woman of 1,000 faces" - assassin's assistant, lady of lipstick, hard-eyed Wall Street banker, etc. The roles may have been small, but they were memorable. I will add more info to the article from the existing sources, and look for more sources too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by RebeccaGreen. BD2412 T 01:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An example of
WP:HEY after improvements by RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cascio

Elizabeth Cascio (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)

She has won no awards nor done anything of notice beyond what is expected of a working scholar. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started the page. As a professional economist myself, I believe Cascio's work has been influential (1800 citations in Google Scholar is far more than is typical for our field). She has also won a minor prize (the Labour Economics Best Reviewer Award, 2014), and her work is frequently cited in publications such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal. I would also like to point out that there is no such deletion proposal for her colleague, Ethan G. Lewis, who has had a very similar career.--EAWH (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC), modified at --EAWH (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Indeed, there is not: this is another in a string of highly questionable nominations of female academics and economists (targeting, among others, a named chair at Harvard and a Fellow of the Royal Academy) that shows a startling disinterest in
snow keeps. Ravenswing 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:PROF#C1. In addition to the references already present, other secondary sources like [32][33][34][35] could potentially be added. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for
WP:NPROF C1. Although this nomination is not as much of a snow keep as the previous batch on the academic AfD section, the keep case looks solid: several highly cited papers in a medium-to-low citation field, with a high total citation number. I'll point out on the minus side that she is an associate professor, which in the past has made us look a bit more carefully. I share concerns others express about the pointed-appearing nomination for deletion of female academics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes
WP:PROF#1 with an h-index of 20. GNG is more marginal but is not required to be met because she passes PROF. J 947^{'s public account} 22:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weakish keep. Just passes
WP:Prof. My only ~~complaint~~ reservation is the great bloat of this BLP about a not yet very prominent subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep. Six publications with 100 citations each is easily enough for
WP:PROF. And suggest to BeenAroundAWhile that continuing to focus on nominating notable academic women for deletion (this is one of four, apparently the first although I noticed it last; the other three are 1, 2, 3) is likely to raise suspicion of biased editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Reasonably decent h-index value. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 3 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manthor

Manthor (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)

Minor Tolkien character. Coverage in one article in the Tolkien Journal but not enough to pass
WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — a minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien trivia, fails
WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We do not need to have an article on every single piece of Tolkien trivia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not even appear in the Similrilian. This is the true definition of a trivial character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, this Tolkiencruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual Tolkien fancruft with nothing but primary sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:17, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yenitza Muñoz

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

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

WP:CREATIVE, etc. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any independent, in-depth, reliable sources either. I think it's
WP:TOOSOON for an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree. I would suggest draftify if there was anything these. scope_creep^Talk 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:G11 - my original speedy was removed by a sock of the creator. Still valid. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per Jmertel23. No sources found. Only a website of hers. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:02, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorlas

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

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

Another minor Tolkien character. While a lot of Tolkien's characters are notable, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources for this figure. Hog Farm (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — a minor character in minor works.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien trivia, fails
WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is little more than the result of an obsession. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I a m beginning to think that people who are never even named in the Hobbit or LoTR are very unlikely to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual Tolkien fancruft with nothing but primary sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:17, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aerin

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

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

Very minor Tolkien character. Little notability in-universe, none in the real world. Hog Farm (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very minor Tolkien character. The article is completely in-universe
WP:PLOT sources only to primary sources. Searching for additional sources only brings up brief mentions that only summarize the same plot information. There is nothing to actually indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — a minor character in minor works.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien trivia, fails
WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We are not Wikia. We do not need information that is three levels of the background of any truly impactful work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual Tolkien fancruft with nothing but primary sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Túrin Turambar where this character is mentioned multiple times. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turgon

Turgon (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)

Deprodded for reason "seems notable enough". The article is only sourced to the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin and I can't find much in the way of actual coverage for this fellow. Since no coverage has popped up between my research before the prod and now, I'm taking Turgon to AfD. Hog Farm (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Minor character in minor works.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien trivia, fails
WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If only these editors were devoted to improving representation, rather than obsessively creating and maintaining fancruft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete His sword may have been notable, but he is not. In part because when his sword is found in later times, he is not named as its former owner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge a little to List of Middle-earth characters. He is, after all, a major character in The Silmarillion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual Tolkien fancruft with nothing but primary sources. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:16, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yinka Djin

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

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

GNG fail. Directed a couple of films, but I cannot find any good sources. Tagged for notability since 2010 and for sources since 2008.
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I must have looked at this about eight times. If there was sources, there would be references. She lives in the western world, so it is hard not to get noticde if you your doing something, but there is nothing. Fails
WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of
WP:GNGcompliance. What sources exist that appear to be reliable are not significant, and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 10 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 Ohio State University Press. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latinographix

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

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

WP:RS. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources do actually include several reviews of series books in major national review media (Kirkus, PopMatters, Publishers Weekly, various daily newspapers) that speak to the importance of individual titles and the series' relevance as a dedicated outlet for Latinx comics creators. These are not sales pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.189.95 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Kirkus review and Publishers Weekly don't even mention Latinographix at all. Pop Matters only gives a passing mention at the bottom about the name of the series. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mentioned in passing in a few interviews [36][37][38], but no significant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ohio State University Press seems completely appropriate to merge the imprint into the publisher page, as we would do on most such topics, Sadads (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little problem – the publisher article doesn't mention Latinographix at all, it's a stub, and it has a flashy questionable notability tag. UnnamedUser (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnnamedUser: really? This is the first reference on the article for deletion. Sadads (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I have a habit of not reading appendices or what looks like an appendix. UnnamedUser (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure why this is any more notable then Ohio State University Press's other series/imprints (see here), none of which are mentioned in the wikiarticle. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: That the OSU Press article is a stub and doesn't mention other series, is not a reason to not include it -- if anything, that argues for other notable series with significant secondary coverage, like this one, ought to be covered. If there is a significant scholarly interest in this series, there is plenty of room for inclusion. Sadads (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree (wondered if anyone would take the bait, you/others may trout me for being cheeky), as penance have added OSUP series/imprints to OSUP article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:38, 10 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) 01:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Earley

Lori Earley (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 of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run of the mill artist. GNG fail.
talk) 01:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a copyright violation of loriearley.com/about Vexations (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are similar but I don't see the copyright violation here. J 947^{'s public account} 22:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J947 Public, See https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lori_Earley Vexations (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I deleted the infringing stuff. J 947^{'s public account} 20:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Introducing a promotional text that is written by her gallery and pretending the article is neutral by saying "Earley's gallery, the Allouche Gallery wrote:" that is still promotional, even though it is a quote that "technically" is allowed because it attributes the statement, I think that is stretching our policies and guidelines to their limits. Unless an independent source says it, it should not be included in the article. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI , I gave the gallery promotion a trim. Still a GNG fail.
talk) 01:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think it is a case of
WP:TOOSOON. She is accomplished and the art, women in a surrealistic, figurative Anime/Gothic style with weird hair, long necks, big eyes are hugely recognisable and collectable. So it is only time when she is back here. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not finding reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 23:59, 6 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_2&oldid=1142614473"