Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 31

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. and SALT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmee Jannat

Nazmee Jannat (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 enough notable. Costume designer of one movie does not make anyone notable. Even she have not won any major national or international notable fashion designing award. Failed

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still as non-notable as when this article was last deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect from its creation for a third time, per
  WP:MILL. This was just deleted 22 months ago. I don't see how anything's changed for her notability, and I can't assume good faith here that I could have in 2007 or 2012. In 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a charity, not a random web host for free resume services. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. non-notable actress fail
  WP:COIEDIT related. Agree with this article was previous deleted.~ Nocturnal^talk 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per above. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion : protect this article from re-create next time. And nominate for XFD in other language which is this article available —Bbemoni (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

2020 in archosaur paleontology

2020 in archosaur paleontology (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 is an example of many similarly titled pages for which I can not identify any notability. In one sense this AfD is a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable. For the record, there is no article "2020 in botany" yet botany is a much larger field of scientific research. The issues I have is that there is nothing to indicate that the topic as a whole is notable. No sources are produced for "2020 in archosaur palaeontology" as a notable topic. All the individual entries are sourced to primary sources. There is no apparent discrimination about what is and what is not included. Everything is also

The page is one of the subpages of 2020 in paleontology, created in an attempt to avoid creating pages that are too long to navigate comfortably. It would be possible to incorporate all content from this and similar pages into 2020 in paleontology, but it would eventually lead to that page growing to an enormous size. As for the matter of the list being indiscriminate in its inclusion, as noted on the talk page of WikiProject Palaeontology, the scope implied by the title and header is broad (it doesn't, for example, restrict itself just to mentions of new taxa), and the discussions on the talk page of this project or elsewhere so far did not result in the imposition of any rules strictly regulating what type of research should or shouldn't be mentioned. In fact it is difficult (if possible at all) to instantly determine how significant particular studies are - for instance, a study on the age of a geological formation that doesn't generate much interest in the media in the long term might be more important for paleontology than a description of a new taxon that initially generated more interest. I find it confusing that you contrast this page with 2019 in science, as the scope of that page implied by the title and header is, if anything, much broader and less discriminate in its inclusion. Finally, the claim that everything on the list is speculative is factually incorrect - no study on the list was formally published before 2020 (though they were announced earlier), and some studies are already specifically scheduled to be published in the issues of scientific journals that are scheduled to be published in 2020 (for example, there are already four issues of Cretaceous Research scheduled for 2020).--37.30.52.209 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can explain what inclusion criteria are used here? For example, Thanos simonatti, was described in 2018 and listed in PBDB as described in 2018. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far only the advance online version of the article naming it, not assigned to any published issue, was made available on the website of the Historical Biology journal. According to article 8.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such an electronic work must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. The advance online version of the article naming Thanos does not contain evidence in the work itself that registration in Zoobank has occurred, so it doesn't constitute a published work according to ICZN. Therefore, Thanos wasn't validly named in the advance online version of the HB article. It will be validly named once the article naming it will be published in a print version of one of the issues of Historical Biology.--188.146.102.58 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the enthusiasm and committent to advancing the course of palaeontology but none of the arguments advanced so far address the issue of notability, the absence of RS for either the topic or the individual entries or, as Maksim Dolgun re-iterates, the lack of any criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia asks for secondary or tertiary sources to support inclusion and requires multiple reliable and independent sources to attest to the notability of the topic. This has none of these. I think that this may be an excellent list, but just not a Wikipedia list .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks that this article has the right to exist, because every year paleontologists make a significant number of discoveries related to archosaurs, but we must clean it and replace some paleontological discoveries to articles about 2018/2019 in archosaur paleontology. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is no reason to exist. Every year biochemists make a significant number of discoveries related to ADAM17. We don't need a page every year listing the results of all the primary research papers. ----Pontificalibus 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Velella: What, precisely, is your argument regarding the article itself? The arguments you bring up don't really seem to refer to the article as such, but rather to the content within the article. However,

WP:GNG which you brought up yourself specifically state that notability guidelines in general do not apply to content within an article. Also, please explain why in your opinion 2019 in science which you brought up (the article as such, not the specific contents of the article) fullfills the criterium of the notability of the topic, but the article we discuss doesn't.--188.146.102.58 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: the article as such functions as a list and therefore should meet the criteria of a list as under Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. There it is stated:

Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

   *Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia

This criterion is met, as every taxon entered is obviously notable under any rational interpretation of notability.

Furthermore, "Chronological lists" are in the policy generally accepted as a valid category.

And WP:Notability notes:

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability

The informational purpose here is obvious.

Lastly, proposing an article for deletion as "a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable" is a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and therefore a forbidden action. If you want policy changed or established, this is not the proper way.--MWAK (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to either test policy or change policy. What I wanted to avoid was swamping AfD with a whole list of articles that all were equally lacking in notability. It was, and remains possible that I overlooked a notability criteria and I would be happy to be learn of such guidance. Nothing I have seen to date persuades me to that view however.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2020 in paleontology is sufficient. The reason this is too big to fit there is that it lists every research paper in the field. We should only be listing major discoveries and providing wikilinks to new taxa etc. Listing all the publications is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. ----Pontificalibus 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This and similar lists do not list every research paper in the field. Furthermore, not only I doubt that your proposed solution would prevent one page for all paleontological research from growing too large and difficult to navigate, I doubt even more radical trimming than the one you advocate would prevent that. Even a list of all new fossil taxa described during a particular year and of nothing else would contain hundreds of taxa, if not more, every year. And besides, this is a complaint about the content of the page rather than about the page as such.
    The guidelines about the content that should be included listed in the article header in its current form are admittedly broad and general. The talk page of the WikiProject Palaeontology had at least one discussion about possible restriction of the criteria for included content, but it seems to have fizzled out without reaching any conclusion. If you find the article too inclusive, perhaps you should consider reopening that discussion. And in case of the discussion resulting in the imposition of new criteria of inclusion, perhaps 2020 in paleontology would, indeed, be sufficient (though, for reasons noted above, I doubt it would actually be the case). But this hasn't happened yet, and your claim that 2020 in paleontology is already sufficient is, at best, not self-evident.--188.146.99.74 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleontology is a very diverse field, with multiple disciplines that do not have much in common. Significant advances in one of these disciplines do usually not mean much (if anything) for the other disciplines. This is very different to most other fields of science. Granting each discipline a separate list is the best solution imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MWAK. These lists are highly useful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per MWAK. These lists have always been useful. They fulfill the requirements to be a standalone list, and the subpages fit the requirements to be split off due to parent page length. Imagine putting all of the subpages of
  R}} 17:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep per previous users.
  Talk | Contributions) 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per MWAK et al. With respect to comments about notability and sourcing, I think most users uninvolved with the project do not realize that the primary objective of palaeontology is taxonomy. One paper is sufficient to establish a new genus and/or species as being notable, pursuant to the aims of the meta-project WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, so long as the taxon meets proper requirements for the registration of the name. In addition, we are already being quite strict with what we consider to be notable: we, as a general principle, do not have distinct articles for species within genera, unlike most other projects under the meta-project. There is also a long list of dubious names which we do not grant status as separate articles, but instead address under List of informally named dinosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I think there needs to be more stringent inclusion requirements for non-taxonomic research (e.g. non-taxonomic research must be supported by reporting in a popular source and/or be significant to the literature in some other way). This in no way diminishes the validity of the article as a whole, which is first and foremost a curated list of new taxa. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, whenever I edited articles like the one that's discussed, I considered studies providing new information on fossil taxa in matters such as, for example, skeletal anatomy, soft tissues, life history, diversity, evolutionary relationships and geographical distribution to be significant studies. But I will admit that this came from my own judgement, as the guidelines from the article header are not detailed on that point, and the sheer vastness of the field led to the articles becoming very long. Seeing that the additions of new taxa are largely uncontroversial, I will be only adding those from now on until more detailed guidelines about the content allowed in such articles are implemented. Thank you for your comment--188.146.99.74 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't feel impeded to keep adding the other research. The guidelines are already there and they are crystal-clear. WP:Notability nowhere demands that notability is justified by a "popular" source. It states:

Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications

Also,

WP:NOTDIRECTORY simply does not forbid such lists. Read it :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep It is worth noting that this resource is by far the most comprehensive list of paleontological research on the internet, and is used by actual paleontologists to keep up with the hectic output of modern research. Vetebrate paleontology as a field consits of probably less than 3,000 researchers and there is far more amateur interest in the topic than there is for some obscure part of biochemistry. @188.146.99.74: I would personally like that you keep including all relevant research papers, as you seem to be able to find all papers of interest, which is really useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• strong Keep, per MWAK, and with the notation that if you look at in archosaur Paleontology on Jan 4, 2019 Versus the Current version you can see just how much it grew over the year, so it will just need to be recreated in a month anyways. Also, @Velella: there IS infact a 2020 in botany, correctly placed at 2020 in Paleobotany.--Kevmin § 20:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Abyssal (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the above reasons. Paleontology is a big science with many directions. Furthermore, this article is very useful. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The function of this list as a navigational aid is clear enough for me. It's hard to argue that the topic of the list is narrow and that the list is "indiscriminate" (maybe not impossible, but certainly hard). We could argue over the inclusion criteria, but this isn't the forum for that. Nor is
  being "speculative" really a concern here, when the "future events" in question are things like a scientific paper, already accepted at a journal and scheduled for publication, being officially printed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Deleting it because its too short and doesn't have enough sources yet is a bit foolish, as it is covering all that will happen in the coming year; if we delete it now its just gonna be recreated in short order. Its not particularly speculative, and it follows summary style (2020 in paleontology has this as a subpage, which keeps both articles of manageable length). However, once 2020 is over, and if the article still has few or no sources, then another deletion discussion could be warranted. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has a navigational purpose as stated in the guide
  WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is useful for navigation and informational. Plenty will happen in 2020 archosaur paleontology, we just started the year. Eostrix (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Gary Clifford

Gary Clifford (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)

Local policician and small-town mayor. I did a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a hyper local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not all small-city mayors are notable.
  talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Glendora CA is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors or city councillors just because they exist — but the referencing is almost entirely
  blogs, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make him more notable than other local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN. Clifford is a local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails NPOLDartslilly (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orodreth

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

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

Non-notable fictional character. Has some Google scholar hits, but only discussed in-depth in [1]. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article passes
  WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Orodreth is only discussed in fan communities. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – I have found some sources, but all are very much stretching the
  undue emphasis on Orodreth. Happy New Year! // J947 ^(c) 21:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: non-notable character. Appears in The Silmarillion which is not one of Tolkien's major works.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack significant coverage needed to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  click me!) 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Insertcleverphrasehere Dartslilly (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Danish philosophy

Danish philosophy (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)

There is no meaningful synergy between being Danish and a philosopher. Category:Danish philosophers is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination. It appears that there are a number of country philosophy articles, albeit a lot more developed. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per
  WP:SKCRIT Wm335td (talk) 20:36, 31 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) 21:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Christian Altar

History of the Christian Altar (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)

Catholic Encyclopedia-sourced stub essentially unchanged since creation in 2012 and which doesn't have any information not already substantially present in Altar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if there is nothing to merge as a content overlap and not a likely redirect term, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  this isn't it. If you want to take a crack at improving it, please userfy it. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Axel Music

Axel Music (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)

Sources both are self-cites, one of closing of this company. EL and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 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 Nazgûl. Redirecting as an ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angmar

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

)

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

Non-notable fictional realm. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nazgûl Angmar's most prominent resident was the leader of the Nazgûl. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may be named a few times, but outside of places where it is "Thewitch-king of Angmar" these namings are very rare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 31 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 Florida State Seminoles football#Jimbo Fisher era (2010–2017). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gabbard

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

)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  unreliable or not independent. Happy New Year! // J947 ^(c) 22:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Florida State Seminoles football#Jimbo Fisher era (2010–2017) not enough N for students and alone and enough not to delete. Wm335td (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Also, I do not support the redirect option in this case. Absent some special circumstance, our practice and precedent is to delete (rather than redirect) articles on non-notable college players. No special circumstances that I see here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I'm far more inclusionist than most for redirects. I'm perfectly fine with deletion here. J947 ^(c), at 01:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sources do not show significant coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet Jex

Garnet Jex (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)

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep his work is found in at least two museum collections, the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley. The sourcing of the article has also been improved since the start of the Afd. Curiocurio (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I found two additional collections where the artist's work is held, and added them to the article along with citations. Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per the artist's work held in the collections of five notable museums, and article improvements. Netherzone (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just as Netherzone says.
  talk) 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, this is ready to be closed. Glad to come here just to see the user name just above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per comments above. Thanks, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homie

Homie (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 looks like a dictionary entry, and the wiktionary entry is much better. Eostrix (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it's a fine article, all it lacks is more sources, if those sources are added by the author of someone else, it will be fine. If not, it should be deleted. Puddleglum ^2.0 15:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wrong project. Has no business being in Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Wikitionary article per
  WP:CHEAP. There's some kids who don't know. Now get off my lawn. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTDICT or not urban dictionary Wm335td (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bite Back Movement

The Bite Back Movement (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 appears to possibly be

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the nom says,
  talk) 15:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non-notable art "movement", as is Alexander Augustus (an artist associated with the the movement) which is also up for deletion. Maybe in a few years time, but now is too soon. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by Netherzone.
  talk) 12:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:CHEAP to Alexander Augustus, if and only if that second article is kept. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against restoring to draft if sources meeting Wikipedia's criteria can be found. BD2412 T 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Horror International Film Festival

Bloody Horror International Film Festival (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 is a notable festival or award. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Doesn't even appear to be a festival at this point - the website points you to their facebook page for basically all information, and looking over this year's facebook listings, they have "winners" but no screenings listed. No notability sighted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but film festivals and independent film might not be your field of play. All the things you have listed above is completely false. It is a IMDB listed film festival. There you can see winners of 2019 and years past. Read IMDB's rules and regulations for adding a IMDB certified festival to their website. Please don't report wiki pages when you don't have done a background check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not IMDb, and Wikipedia's standards need not be IMDb's standards, which accepts literally thousands of festivals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknockers99 You're right, film festivals aren't my forte but Wikipedia is. "It's on imdb" is the equivalent of "but it's on facebook!" Completely meaningless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is a directory, not a conferrer of notability. Inclusion in IMDB means absolutely nothing about whether a film, a person involved in it, a production company or a film festival meets our inclusion standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say they list thousands of festivals which of course is true. There has been hundreds of thousands of film festivals through the years. To be listed on IMDB you have to be an established festival.

I'll put up some examples for you below.

Rules: Be current. Historical Events are not eligible at this time.

Be established for more than 5 years.

Have an official website.

Have a well-established jury or method of selecting winners. For example, anyone can start a website with voting mechanisms, and any would-be critic can select their favourite movies of the year and announce them on their own website or social media profile - these Events are not eligible.

Have received regular international or national press coverage (wide or trade). For example, a nationally broadcast awards ceremony or a festival award winner announced in recognized trade or other media publications would be eligible for listing. An Event with only local news, social media, fan or blog coverage is not eligible for listing at this time.

Wildcard: If the Event does not meet the above criteria, we will consider Events if they have generated a considerable amount of public interest. For example, if a festival premiered a movie that went on to win an Oscar, that Event would be considered for listing (please note, the Event should have played an important part in the movie's release, like a premiere - just screening it does not make the Event eligible unless the other criteria are met).

Why did you report this and call it "a not notable film festival" when it is following these rules of being established?

You have also claimed that they don't have a screening listed. Please watch their festival websites (Which 95% of all film festivals use) and you can see when their deadlines and screenings are scheduled. https://filmfreeway.com/BloodyHorrorFilmFestival

Please, in the future, don't report pages when you aren't familiar to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I checked the filmfreeway page. It has an event date but no actual, y'know, location. And lacking signs of significant coverage, it doesn't look like it qualifies for a Wikipedia page. Merely being an "established" festival in the eyes of IMDb does not make it notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I looked for coverage in newspapers.com and got 0 results for the term.
  talk) 07:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The referencing here is entirely to
  WP:ORGDEPTH, but none of the sources here are of the correct type. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - IMDB's inclusion criteria are not the same as Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and discussion. TheAnayalator (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting the Witch Path

Documenting the Witch Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see no real changes since it was deleted via prod 2 years ago - the only new awards won are not notable and the only other change is that it was released for viewing elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago it was still a film festival film that was not released. Now it is a commercial film that is available world wide through the same distributor that released the Hell House trilogy. To win a award at Norways only genre film festival held at Cinemateket in the capital Oslo is more than notable in northern Europe. The film has also been featured in Scream Magazine which is the most famous horror magazine in the world.

Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia which also must contain films from a independent market that is constantly growing. You can already find several indie film titles searchable through wikipedia. The indie film library (That is released on major platfors) on this encyclopedia is something I would like to help grow and the same goes for different film festivals around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknockers: If you want to create articles about films, then you shouldn't use content that's directly copied from an IMDB description. That's plagiarism. You should write the article in your own words. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am sorry about that. I'll change it right away. Thank you for pointing that out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate solid sources. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — and the notability distinction has exactly jack spit to do with the distinction between the film festival circuit and commercial release, either: film festival films can be notable, and commercially released films can be not notable, because the distinction hinges on the depth and volume of
  blogs, with not even one reliable or notability-supporting source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. I believe there is a consensus that notability as an actor is established Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Irandoost

Ahmad Irandoost (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)

seem to be failing

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. How can I provide reliable sources about this actor, when there is a few news websites who interviewed with him? Please give me some guidelines. Thanks  MrInfo2012  Talk  14:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that based on notability criteria, he had a significant role in Barareh Nights TV series and after about 15 years, many people remembered him for his role. Although, Barareh Nights is one of the most popular tv comedy series in Iran and Irandoost had the role of "Ghoule Barareh". As you can see, Barareh Nights has the admirable 8.3 score on IMDB, and role of Irandoost on this show was the beginning of his actor career. Another notable work that he played is Deportee 2 which had a huge amount of viewers at the time of premier. In that film, he had the role of Iraqi commander.  MrInfo2012  Talk  09:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Significant coverage. Benyamin (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Significant coverage. Shfarshid (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Subject of article doesn’t satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable, independent sources - Two references meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [1] Bornstein, David (May 29, 2013). "Lobbying for the Greater Good", (published online by the New York Times) and [2] Motlagh, Rebecca (December 4, 2003). "Coronado Man Finds Satisfaction In Helping Others". The latter is an in-depth article focused solely on the subject, while the former establishes his notability as the founder the Citizens' Climate Lobby. (Please take a look at CCL). A third in-depth reference, [3] Geoffrey, Johnson. "Friendly persuasion" Rotary, was written 18 years after the subject left the Rotary Club. It meets the criteria of "Independent of the subject". Mbcoats (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires more than just two sources. We do not just count up the footnotes and indiscriminately keep everybody who meets or exceeds two — GNG takes into account the geographic range of where the sources are coming from and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and is not just an invariable n>=2.Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to an ideal activist with minor coverage, name mentions, and small profiles, but non-notable. Nothing in-depth, intellectually independent. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I've read the NYT article--taken along with the other references, it's sufficient. It talks about Saunders with regard to leadership to two separate major organizations. It's an opinion piece by a well known journalst, David Bornstein . Considering the author ,I consider it as reliable as an news story in the nYT. I'd advise people to read it before you !vote. Had I omitted to read it, I might have !voted delete also. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Taking into consideration the size and impact of the organization Saunders founded, CCL, I vote that he is notable. CCL is supported by recognized climate scientists
  George P. Shultz, former congressman Bob Inglis, and actor Don Cheadle. The organization has citizen chapters in nearly every U.S. state and in many countries, most notably Australia and Canada. Mbcoats (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - two excellent sources in the NY Times and Bloomberg. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Consensus that it warrants deletion, whether that be as a redundant fork or listcruft Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have been the subject of pranks on Punk'd

List of celebrities who have been the subject of pranks on Punk'd (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The information here is redundant to the much better, more detailed List of Punk'd episodes. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Redundant information. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information is already at List_of_Punk'd_episodes#Season_8:_2007 Dream Focus 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete
  WP:REDUNDANT Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete pure listcruft. Kaweendra (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant listcruft Dartslilly (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CHEAP would be okay by me. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Love Boat guest stars

List of The Love Boat guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of Fantasy Island guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This deserves more discussion than a prod. These lists of (mostly) one-time guest stars in guest-star-heavy TV shows fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. The Love Boat list has only one reference cited, which doesn't even mention The Love Boat. The Fantasy Island list has zero references. These lists are actually less useful with respect to their own series than is List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M), which is itself on the way to deletion.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They're just lists of trivia without giving any context. It seems like they'd be listed in the episode summaries anyway. TTN (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to X-Treme X-Men. The one sentence or so can be merged from history. Sandstein 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lotus (comics)

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

)

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

PRODded, redirected, then reverted. Fictional character article that does not establish the notability of the character itself independent of the subject - no notability outside of the X-Men comics. Would endorse a redirect as well, though I personally find that a little implausible as a search term when there is a parenthetical disambiguation in the article's title. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to X-Treme X-Men. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to X-Treme X-Men. There's maybe a sentence's worth of content cited to a reliable source that can be merged. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:57, 31 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.

Lola Amour

Lola Amour (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)

Band fails general notability guidelines. The citations included are not significant coverage from reliable sources. I did a Google search and couldn't find any exceptions per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They meet criteria 10 (won a music competition) as per
  WP:LOCAL either, so I'm game for keeping this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: @Citrivescence: Upvoting the comment of User:Dennisthe2. Same rationale. Read footnote 3.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Dennis The Tiger. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A battle of the bands to get on a festival lineup is not a major music competition. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Duffbeerforme: But Wanderband is a "major" music competition just like Redhorse Beer Muziklaban is. You totally missed the point why they organized the battle of the band in the first place. It's not like a barangay hosted a battle of the band program and invited local talents for a fiesta. I do think Wanderband is a "major" music competition sans the alcoholic beverage sponsor. Plus the Wanderland organizers themselves are responsible for the battle of the bands to get new talents.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As major as Redhorse Beer Muziklaban? Where's the coverage of Wanderband that convinces you of that. Battle of the band contests to appear on the bill of notable festivals are a dime a dozen. They do not inherit notability from the festival. What makes this one special? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per
  WP:NBAND. won a music competition Wm335td (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Same thoughts w/ Dennisthe2 — Emperork (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see coverage of the band in The Manila Standard and The Phillipine Star. I don't know much about news media in the Phillipines but they look like responsible news sources to me. A Google News search reveals a lot of people talking about Lola Amour as an up and coming band. Toughpigs (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable band with significant coverage. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dennis Dartslilly (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on playing large venues around the Philippines and winning a reality TV show. (I'm actually not impressed with the sourcing.) Bearian (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. A redirect can happen outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regard (DJ)

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 in the article indicates why the DJ is notable to have his own page. Anything here is already covered on the song he remixed with more details.

• Keep does meet the "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" criteria of
  WP:GNG as well, for example coverage in BBC, Rolling Stone, Celeb Mix. The article is poorly written, but the subject is, I think, notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article was already nominated for deletion and the deletion was declined. We are over it. The page clearly shows that the artist is notable, Regard’s song “Ride It” was a Top 5 hit in Australia. The artist is clearly notable. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the table I made, it is done wrong because I’m using an iPad and cannot do the right “. Also, we could live with that anyway, and I’m sure someone will fix it. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is the

WP:NOTAGAIN fallacy. Narky Blert (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or at a push redirect to song. Subject has one cover song that does not even have an article of its own. Too soon for article of non notable artist imo. Robvanvee 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Delete, because the subject does not meet GNG in my view. Very limited coverage, for what is essentially a niche SINGLE EVENT. A couple of the better more indepth references available are actually interviews and hence primary. Weak, because they do meet subject NMUSIC by charting (reasonably well, but only for a short period) in a couple of countries, but which for my view has a far too low bar. Brief, one, but not chart topping, hit wonders should not have a presumption of N, especially if they have nothing else of any notability at all. Aoziwe (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Redirect. The remix by the subject is definitely notable, and a likely search term. There is no indication I can find that the subject himself is notable in his own right, and notability is not inherited. So redirect from

Regard (DJ) to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version. Aoziwe (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Looking further, Regard did reach Number One in the official singles chart in Ireland: [2] which seems pretty notable to me, especially combined with Top 5 charting in at least two other countries. I tend to agree that the NMUSIC criteria is a low bar, but it is the agreed bar, nevertheless. Until it is changed, we should judge AfDs on the basis of the consensus view expressed in the notability guidelines. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. But the only way such gets challenged is by having discussions at AfD or arising at AfD and going over the guideline. So that argument is a rather circular block I think. But that is another discussion for another day. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A random AfD is about the worst place to try to get a notability guideline changed. If you want to challenge one of the

WP:NMUSIC criteria, then start a discussion on the talk page and get consensus there. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• NMUSIC explicity says "may be notable if", it is not an immediate pass for notability and it still subjected to
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Excuse me, there is notability. I have mentioned and sourced that “Ride It” peaked at number 3 on the
  ARIA. Stop saying that this page shows no notability. Also, if you say that the only notability is that it charted, that is good enough. If you have a high-charting song, It should get you a Wikipedia page. So stop saying that. It’s inaccurate. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Notability is not
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please !vote only once. Narky Blert (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what guys? If you don’t like what it shows, I suggest you edit the page with reliable sources. Instead of deleting my articles, fix them. It’s a better idea. And you can’t call me lazy for that. I just can’t do it. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can do it because the sources don't exist. Redirect for me. Doctorhawkes

Please !vote only once. Narky Blert (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  WP:NMUSICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version. This remix is the only thing currently worth including in his article. The song's page already has a completed version of what the artist's page is trying to be. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've expanded the page, using the already noted BBC article (which is not an interview) and the Rolling Stone article and new articles by the Radio Times, Music Week and Billboard. There are at now seven
  WP:NMUSIC. I invite contributors here to re-asses the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]