Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 8

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Swerten

Axel Swerten (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)

Played very limited game time to be eligible via

WP:GNG with only three references for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Máté Szolga

Máté Szolga (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)

Despite playing a single game of football which would be eligible for

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. However, there's no prejudice against Aymatth2 renominating this with a proper rationale. (non-admin closure)MJLTalk 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists

List of lists of lists (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)

Self-referential meta nonsense page. Jtrainor (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if the norm had not been (for years, and even on other projects such as Wikia, as was already mentioned above, as a reply to your previous comment, and before you made this comment) to provide both categories and list articles, there would still be only 48 articles in that category and hundreds in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of lists of lists has 707 entries. Category:lists of lists has 1,113 entries, including sub-categories. See this scan. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inasmuch as it contradicts WP:NOTDUPE's "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided", it is Lists of Lists#Purpose which is redundant, and should be deleted. It is an essay, while DUPE is a Guideline. NOTDUPE has a rationale: "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories", which has already been presented here, and which "Purpose" does not address, somewhat ironically given its title. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of lists do have value, as noted in "Purpose", but they are not useful if they give no more information or structure than a category. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per
    WP:LISTPURP, particularly Navigation, which probably says this better than I can. I'm kind of shocked people think this page isn't useful. As a reader I've frequently used this page for navigating on subject matters I'm not familiar with. I've particularly found it's useful for identifying things like specific films whose names I can't remember, but have used it many times to read up on other subjects that I don't know very much about and would otherwise have difficulty researching in. It's hard to search for lists of lists if you're not sure if the list you're looking for exists. Darthkayak (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Darthkayak:. You may find Category:Lists of film lists more up-to-date than List of lists of lists#Performing arts. Compare List of Araneidae species to List of Cyatholipidae species. The first is a list of lists and is in Category:Lists of species lists (but not in List of lists of lists#Biology). The second is not a list of lists. A reader looking for members of a spider family is unlikely to find it in the category or the list article. Both only give access to a very small subset of lists, and an even smaller subset of articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: Ah thanks! I'll definitely start using Category:Lists of film lists when I have trouble identifying films. That said, my point is less about the current state of the article, which I think is not up to date, and more about the potential value of the article for casual navigation - I am certain there are readers who have used it for similar purposes as I have, but for whom it wouldn't occur to look further into the category pages. Darthkayak (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that List of lists of lists is out of date and incomplete, but that even if it were a perfect match to Category:Lists of lists, and even if that category were fully populated, it would still lead to a very arbitrary subset. Most articles are not in lists, and most lists are not in lists of lists. A reader who tries to locate an article through the lists-of-lists tree is very unlikely to find it. c (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) 23:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke McNally

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

The player currently fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:16, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. @

]

François Bazaramba

François Bazaramba (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 BLP accuses its subject of genocide. The claim is sourced to an article in a language I don't speak, and I'm unable to evaluate its reliability. I feel that if the source is reliable then Mr Barazamba is probably notable and the article is probably appropriate, but if not then I think it should be summarily deleted. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd asked whether the article was potentially libelous. The machine translation adequately supports a "no" answer, in my experienced opinion (I work in a country where I don't know the language well, and use GT frequently). I also gave you a source written in English from the same news organization, and a search link to find more. I end with reasons (partly speculative) of why the Finnish language source might (or might not) be preferable to that in English. I'm not sure I understand what your concern is here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you. There's notability here but I agree that a case article feels preferable to a biography. I'd be a little less uncomfortable about the allegation of genocide if there was a reliable source for the outcome of the appeal.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yle has some articles also in English (as well as in Finnish and Swedish; they have news portals in all 3 languages). Unfortunately, the most comprehensive article (speaking to the legal significance) seems to only be in Finnish, but I added an English-language article concerning the final denial of his appeal to the article. Perhaps you assumed that yle articles would all be in Finnish? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:46, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red King (Marvel Comics)

Red King (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:16, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Imperial Dog

Chinese Imperial Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, no RS to support it is a breed. Despite what the article says this "breed" does not appear to be recognised by any breed registry, I have searched the FCI, AKC, ANKC, CKC, KC, NZKC & UKC websites, I have also tried Chinese Kennel Union webpage but my translations could be eschew, that being said as a full member of FCI, any breed recognised by the CKU would be granted FCI recognition. I have found this Reuters story about “China's imperial dog”, but it is referring to the Pekingese. Google shows up the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every breed/crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Salon Dog

Russian Salon Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, no RS to support it is a breed. I have searched the FCI with no results and have also tried the Russian Kynological Federation webpage (to the alarm of my firewall) but my translations could be eschew, that being said, as a full member of FCI, any breed recognised by the FKF would be granted FCI recognition. Google does not even show the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" which in itself is telling. Cavalryman (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Zodiac (comics). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn (comics)

Capricorn (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)

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:14, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Arentowicz

Tadeusz Arentowicz (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)

While he does appear in several specialized databases, they are simply chronicles, not true in-depth coverage, so he doesn't pass

WP:NSOLDIER is his command of the 303rd squadron, but squadron commanders don't make it. Onel5969 TT me 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With Great Sacrifice and Bravery: The Career of Polish Ace Waclaw Lapkowski
  2. Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night
  3. Polish Aces of World War 2
  4. THE POLISH AIR FORCE IN BRITAIN, 1940-1947 Wm335td (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Extensive biography of him" is the website that I linked to, which has no more than a short paragraph quoted from each source. Other sources are:
    1: a few brief mentions and what appears to be a short section. I cannot see how long it is because preview cuts off, but it seems likely not to meet sigcov and starts with "Little is known of the career of Arentowicz."
    2: a few brief mentions, nothing resembling sigcov
    3: one brief mention
    4: A photograph in which Arentowicz appears [4] buidhe 22:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments, and your work here. I think we will need to investigate foreign language sources. In any event my opinion is that we should not ]
I don't see what alternative there would be. He is unlikely to belong on a list like ]
On second thought it would be reasonable to redirect to 303 Squadron presuming that all the links were removed. buidhe 23:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect/merge per Buidhe's targeet. My first choice is to keep - I think we have enough for GNG, I did some checking myself and found a few non-trivial references. Air Crew Remembered, Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night The table of contents claims he appears on Pages 191, 194, 213, 214, 248, 269. This source: Based on: Olgierd Cumft, Hubert Kujawa - Book of Polish pilots , Warsaw 1989, MON. I think anyone with this many appearances in books is notable (appearing in a Polish Ace book). Some books I cannot read as they are in Polish. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having a large number of mentions in sources doesn't make a subject notable unless the coverage meets the requirements (reliable source and in-depth). Likewise, mentions (even multiple mentions in the same source) are not significant coverage. What makes the volunteer outfit "Air Crew Remembered", or the other website, a reliable source? So far, no one has been able to find a single source which is reliable and has significant coverage. buidhe 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would simply note that the ample sourcing of this article. which relates to
WP:GNG, documents that he was more noted (at least in Wikipedia sources) than both Zdzisław Henneberg and Wacław Łapkowski, who were his two immediate predecessors in the identical position. 7&6=thirteen () 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
A good example of why the stuff really is not a good argument to use at an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. With no kills he doesn't qualify for any consideration of being a fighter ace. But he may pass GNG. That single webpage is reliable, as it is hosted by the
    ISBN 978-83-11-07329-6. and snippet view in Google prevents me from confirming whether it is a page-long entry or three sentences :/ Still, I think there's enough here that while initially I was going to vote for redirect I am going with 'weak keep' instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Dywizjon 303 "The squadron was the subject of the 1942 book "Dywizjon 303" (Squadron 303), written by the well-known Polish writer Arkady Fiedler, which is considered the most famous and popular among this writer's many works and has sold over 1.5 million copies." All the names in that book were pseudononymous due to war time security concerns for the pilots and their families.

"Because the book was published during the war, in order to protect the Polish airmen and their families remaining in occupied Poland from German reprisals, Fiedler used pseudonyms for the airmen of 303 Squadron. This practice was mandated in a memoregarding confidential information issued by the Air Ministry dated Oct. 14, 1949.[33] In connection with the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain in 2010, a new English translation was commissioned by publisher Aquila Polonica at the request of Fiedler’s son. 303 Squadron: The Legendary Battle of Britain Fighter Squadron is the first new English-language edition of Dywizjon 303 since 1942, and for the first time in English identifies the pilots by their true names." "No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron" (PDF). p. 9.

7&6=thirteen () 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete; sources provided that demonstrate subject does meet GNG went unchallenged.

]

Michael Odokara-Okigbo

Michael Odokara-Okigbo (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 Maine-related deletion discussions. TM 21:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

]

Edde Entertainment

Edde Entertainment (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 former video company. While notability is not lost by the company having been defunct for 20 years, I can't seem to find anything that indicates this company ever passed

WP:GNG. Appears to have gained most of what notability it did have from a lawsuit, which isn't enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Article has four sources: a reference to the lawsuit in a book (however, the mention seems to be about the case, rather than the company), a link to MySpace (not RS), a dead link to a library catalog listing of one of Edde's products, and a routine listing stating that the company had been registered as a corporation in the '80s and '90s. Nothing here to pass the general or subject specific notability tests. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to draft by the page creator,

]

Echelon International

Echelon International (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)

Group is not notable, a single mention in the news is not notability. Charlie.gao (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

]

Eric Mandl

Eric Mandl (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)

US Investment Banker whose BLP was created by an

WP:SIGCOV piece on him. Ultimately, I feel his WP BLP would be the central part of his media notability, but it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Voting for deletion, as the subject has not accrued sufficient coverage to meet
    WP:NOTINHERITED) they are affiliated with; indeed, most mentions of the subject in the sources cited only run for a sentence or two, and some citations failed to mention the subject at all. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has been histmerged to this one. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat Ali Khan

Hidayat Ali Khan (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)

DAB page previously contained 2 people with different names to the article title, only remaining entry is the non-notable father of another person. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now realise that after removing the non-matching names that I should have turned this page into a redirect (and then requested it's deletion?), though I now can't find the page which states this. Spike 'em (talk) 10:13, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EFounders

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

Apparently non-notable small company, coverage does not satisfy

WP:NCORP
. News results consist almost entirely of press-releases, many of them on TechCrunch. Scale of the business is small – according to the source in the page, the investment in Mailjet was €180000, which in Paris might just be enough to buy you a one-room "studio" flat.

Notes: this is neither the company started by Dean Gardner and Bashir Wada some twenty-odd years ago, nor the Alibaba training programme of the same name; it's also blatant

undisclosed paid editing from the outset. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:00, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. Fox Walker

E. Fox Walker (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)

Mentioned in some sources, but has not gotten any significant attention. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gambo (carcass)

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

Subject has received coverage in fringe sources only; there are no reliable sources available to meet GNG or support a balanced article. Previous AfD failed to actually evaluate the sources present at the time. –dlthewave 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Participants in the 2018 AfD do not appear to have actually evaluated the sources present at that time. Comments such as "AGF for the in-print sources" and "without checking the pages of each cited book there is no reason to believe they are insignificant" indicate that the sources were not actually checked for reliability and simply assumed to be sufficient. Here are the sources present in 2018:[reply]

  • There are Giants in the Sea. Bright, Michael. Robson Books, London, 1989.
  • In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Shuker, Karl P.N. Blandford, London, 1995.
  • The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep. Coleman, Loren and Huyghe, Patrick. Jeremy P. Tarcher Publishing. November, 2003

All three books are written from a fringe cryptozoological perspective, promoting theories that the carcass was an unknown species of whale or a surviving plesiosaur. Per

WP:NFRINGE
, the "proclamations of its adherents" cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject. In this case, there appears to be little to no mainstream coverage, therefore it fails GNG. The two external links [12] [13] share the same fringe POV as the books. –dlthewave 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing the previous AfD. Twinkle normally lists previous discussions automatically, but apparently the recent page move interfered. –dlthewave 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have checked that it was here before leaving the AfD. After all, it was your nomination – we can't believe you don't remember trying to delete it before. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its also found in Gambo: The Beaked Beast of Bungalow Beach," Fortean Times (No. 67, Feb.-March 1993), pp. 35-37. So enough sources to justify its existence in the previous form. I agree its wrong to erase the article, reducing it to just one sentence then sending it to AFD. It should've been nominated in its original state. Dream Focus 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fortean Times is a fringe publication and cannot be used to establish notability. Have you found any sources that could be used to write an article based on a mainstream scientific viewpoint? –dlthewave 21:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't much matter what's used as a source, if the nominator strips them all out right before the AfD anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Govindaharihari Which specific comments do you find compelling? There is not a single keep !vote in this AfD or the previous one that actually assess the quality of the print sources which I listed above; all of them either "assume good faith" that they are reliable or are based on purported procedural issues that do not concern the notability of the topic. –dlthewave 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article with a section about Gambo in Strange Magazine #15, Spring 1995, though it's referred to as 'The Gambian Sea Serpent' there. The previous AfD also mentioned "Anon. 1997. In search of Gambo. Animals & Men 14, 11-13." and "Downes, J. 1997. Mission Impossible: the search for ‘Gambo’. Uri Geller’s Encounters 9, 50-53." from the blog of a paleozoologist who wrote about Gambo (http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/gambo-rides-again-beaked-beast-of.html). The blog post also lists several other sources (some may pertain to Gumbo, some may not) that may be worth taking a look at. Paisarepa (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Naish seems to have a book that is partly about Gambo, if the title is too be believed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure any of those are RS. Levivich 06:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this article (in German). No idea how reliable kryptozoologie-online.de is.
I'll note that it's not just nearly blanking the article immediately before the AfD that looks bad; so does removing nearly all sources just hours after the last one closed as 'keep'. Consensus (right or wrong) in that AfD was that the sources were reasonable. Nom, how did you determine the print sources were unreliable? Paisarepa (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here from ANI and did a before search. There's not a reliable source within 100km of this article, even looking at its history. (I will add removing unsourced content a day before opening an AfD isn't great optics even if it's technically acceptable.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptozoologists such as Eberhart are not reliable sources; Mysterious Creatures credulously repeats the fringe theory that the carcass may have been a surviving plesiosaur. Since this is the only type of source available, how would one go about writing an NPOV article? –dlthewave 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bio in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series[14] a review in ]
German article was translated from the English article in 2006. All of the sources are fringe (Bright, Coleman, Shuker discussed above; Strange Magazine, Fortean Times, online "Cryptid Compendiums") and are in fact the same ones that were removed from enwiki due to their unreliability. –dlthewave 12:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't add much more that hasn't already been said, but I'm just not seeing notability for the term established in sources either here or at the article itself. ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination has been withdrawn and only remaining delete !vote makes no reference to any policy.

]

Gloria Ouida Lee

Gloria Ouida Lee (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 pass notability. What is apparent is that she lived and died... as is apparent about many if not most people in the modern era. What is not apparent is a life of relevance to an encyclopedia. This content is more appropriate for a Find a Grave memorial page. Lee appears in some local history books, but not for having done anything such as, but not limited to: working, creating art, being an activist, serving her community, being the "first" or "only" of something in her community, or being the subject of a biography for her said unique experiences. While her life would be a curiosity due to her double-minority ethnic heritage and related experiences in a time and place (moving from Australia to China and back), I see no indication that she or others wrote/published about these experiences (of racism) in depth. Her daughter named an environmental center after her, which is sweet... but surely that can't count for much. Perhaps worst of all is that, lacking other substance, this article largely tells the story of a woman's life by her relationships with men--

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator will point out that the article at the time of nomination had three books, two newspaper articles, and one website as sources. Regarding those books: the nominator has done some checking. The book by Jose Petrick, which the nominator has viewed, is perhaps a secondary source but as a more encyclopedic book about the town is more like a tertiary source. The portion that the nominator has viewed does not cite sources. It reads almost as a vanity book; the nominator can elaborate on its tone and content if you like. The book Through Chinese eyes : the Chinese experience in the Northern Territory 1874-2004, is described as a "personal narrative" and thus appears to be a primary source rather than a secondary source as the GNG calls for. Those two books are self-published: the author's name is the publisher. Self-published local history books can be high-quality sources of information, but they can also be less than that. Alice Springs : from singing wire to iconic outback town, published by Wakefield Press, may be the best reliable secondary source of the bunch. Finally, the nominator points out that the word "appears" does not convey the level of coverage as "is featured" or "is detailed"... passing mentions are appearances. Many of our ancestors appear in newspaper articles, history books, ship manifests, war records, etc. and most are not worthy of biographical articles. The nominator, actually interested in the life story of the subject, does not require a feat of physical fitness to prove worthiness; the nominator confesses to looking for verbs, nouns, and adjectives in assessing articles. The nominator looked for but did not find a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story here, but hopes to see more improvements to the article as the discussion continues. ]
You still appear to believe that, to be notable, an article must convince you that the subject has accomplished something of significance ("a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story"), and not merely been covered in sources that are sufficiently reliable, in-depth, and independent. Can you perhaps point to where in our guidelines or policy that opinion is based? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe that significant accomplishments are it. The "notable-enough" comment refers to that notability is only presumed when the ]
Comment - I've added a new section called Sources, with three Google Books that have multiple pages on Gloria Lee, one of which has a chapter on her. Because one can only see part of the multiple pages, they have not been added them to the References section. If there is a better name for the section than Sources, please feel free to change it, but do keep the books in the article. Her life is well documented. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you did not use any of them as sources in your writing? If you did not, I believe the correct name for the section is "Further reading." ]
WP:BEFORE may not have been conducted before nominating the page for deletion. She clearly meets notability, there are many verifiable reliable sources that were not difficult to find. When searching for women, it's advisable to search under variations of her name, esp. if she has several last names due to marriages or other name changes, as in this case. The article simply needed improvement not deletion. Also, please sign your nomination, and it is policy suggested to inform the original page creator with a notice on their talk page. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep.

]

Media bias against Bernie Sanders

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

An entire page is not needed for this topic. Overall, this page heavily generalizes the U.S. media, and does not take into account that Bernie Sanders has been involved in far less important political matters than some of the other candidates. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump have also been criticized a lot, yet they don't have corresponding pages of this type. See

]

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pósa theorem

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

I attempted to redirect but it's since been contested. This is not an individually notable topic and per

WP:AVOIDSPLIT should be deleted, redirected and merged into Hamiltonian path. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably rename per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:GNG it has "Significant coverage" the topic is discussed directly and in detail by numerous academic sources as explained and referenced above, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The fact that it is not the main topic of much of the source material is unimportant because the mentions and discussions are far from trivial. Search variations do uncover more sources than the links at top for the current page name and a move discussion needs to occur for this page. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron League

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

Fictional organisation. No evidence of real-world notability, no secondary sources cited. The article has been tagged as being in-universe and having sourcing problems since 2013. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian famine of 1942–1943

Iranian famine of 1942–1943 (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)

Unreal subject. Personasiran (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Hart

Knights of the Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional chivalric order. No evidence of real-world notability, and no secondary sources cited. It has been tagged as light on citations and too in-universe since 2013. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom

Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional chivalric order. No evidence of real-world notability; article has been tagged as being written in an in-universe style for over a decade. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a consensus that despite verifiable mentions of the company that is not coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the company in significant detail. As such it is not notable according to our guidelines for

]

Tiff's Treats

Tiff's Treats (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 does not meet current standards for notability -- see WP:NCORP. Most of the refs. are local stories about funding, the others are very local promotional writeups ot pure pR sites like local business journals DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Although I would agree that the PRWeb citation should be deleted and some other edits might be helpful, substantial citations from legitimate third-party media outlets exist as noted above by Cunard to suport the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. A cursory search of the web reveals a number of legitimate citations that are not part of the existing page including:
-- The Nashville Tennessean, Austin's Tiff's Treats bringing 'warm cookie moments' to Nashville
-- The Austin Chronicle, Tiffany & Leon Want to Bake You Some Cookies

ThePhantom65 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:14, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. While there is a clear consensus not to Keep the article in its current form as it does not meet GNG; after a re-list, there was a consensus to Draftify the article on the basis that near-term events "might" create sufficient RS for GNG.

]

Anveshi Jain

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

The actress does not seem notable. Her only claim to fame seems to be "spike in google search" for one event. "most googled name" is also not supported by

WP:ONEEVENT thus also applies. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Comment (responding from WP Indian film task force) Patrika mentions that she had got 30 million Google search hits in January. So far acted in 1 Episode of a web series Gandi baat and not a leading role in BOSS series. No major role yet. She has 2 films upcoming,( G (2020 film) coming up in Jan, where she is the main actress) so it is possible that they may improve the notability. I would suggest to Draftify the article for the time being. --DBigXray 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 12:50, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to X-Statix , whose AfD is moving towards a keep at the moment. – sgeureka tc 16:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Girl

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courier (comics)

Courier (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)

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Vicke Lee Lamberton

Disappearance of Vicke Lee Lamberton (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)

Only local interest DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myint Mo May

Myint Mo May (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 doubt that this beauty contest (Face of Beauty) is considered sufficiently important that the individual winners are considered notable by the mere fact of their participation.(It's not my usual field, so I may of course be completely wrong about this) DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Babylon 5 articles

Index of Babylon 5 articles (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)

When I AfD-nomed this index page a month ago, it ended with a keep basically because index pages are allowed per

WP:NOTDIR might apply. – sgeureka tc 09:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a reason we have categories. Ajf773 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question In the past 30 days [19] this index has gotten 3,474 page views. So some are still using it. Is there a bot to see how many of the blue links are still to articles and not redirects? Even if 90% are just redirects, well, 10% is still a lot of blue links. I look at Category:Babylon_5 and see a lot of articles seem to exist, but apparently whenever someone went through and turned a lot of them into redirects they left this category tag on them. Is there any bot that can remove all categories from redirect articles other than the Hidden categories? Dream Focus 02:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Functionally useless, and CLN does state consensus can decide that certain ways are inappropriate. I'd say these lists are extremely poor choices for the management of fiction, which are quite often in massive flux compared to other topics. It makes keeping lists up to date much harder than real world items. TTN (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Jamia Public School

Abbottabad Jamia Public School (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 Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I can't comment on the quality of this other wiki [20] but it does seem that this is the case of notable school that we have failed to document so far. @
    WP:GNG is not very helpful- as we have no idea what your concern is, and are wasting a lot of time trying to imagine what it is before we can verify it for the discussion. The less worthy the article the longer it takes. ClemRutter (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You're talking about
WP:NCORP if they fails WP:GNG as per guidlines after 2017 RfC on school articles. Störm (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Macintosh models

Comparison of Macintosh models (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)

Contested PROD. This article appears to be a good example of what Wikipedia is

WP:NOTCATALOGUE seem most relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Marie

Ariana Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(View AfD · [21])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. ----NL19931993 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

]

Joseph Lewis, Jr. (Florida judge)

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:JUDGE. Not a state level judge. Florida has Five District Court of Appeals. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUDGE
applies to this person's role.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the appropriate criteria by which to assess this subject is set forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. This guideline states with respect to judges of state courts of appeals: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable". BD2412 T 06:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per late trend. BD2412 T 14:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Maya

Catalina Maya (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)

quite apart from the impossibly bad translation, I don't think this shows notability The refs are routine promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as I said in the last AfD, 90% of Colombian journalism is promotional fluff and sycophancy. You're going to struggle to find objective sources, especially about models and TV presenters. But the sources are reliable ones. Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: just to clarify, W Radio is a reputable and recognized nationally-broadcast radio station, and she presents on it in a professional capacity as part of the drivetime team each weekday evening. If that's not considered enough to make her notable, I won't argue with it, but in Colombia it's almost impossible to become a female radio or TV presenter without being a model and/or former beauty queen, so I wouldn't hold that against her as her background... it's whether she's done enough after that to make her notable. Richard3120 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:42, which are far from perfect. Now, as to your specific example, perhaps being a drive time presenter in a major media market is sufficient. Let me think about it. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearian: I agree with you, and have no particular interest in either keeping or deleting this article, merely to point out that she has progressed somewhat from being simply a model and YouTuber. I accept though that it is definitely difficult to find SIGCOV for Colombian presenters, in a country where much of the journalistic reporting is in the style of Hello! magazine, with an emphasis on the glamorous lives led by actors, footballers and models. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Pardon the pun, but I've alerted the media: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio#Drive_time. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear delete consensus here, we just had a keep consensus 1 month ago and the people here are (with the exception of 1 editor) completely different. As such I am including that participation when weighing consensus here and find that no consensus has yet been reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus has shifted to delete. Tone 18:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 The Hague stabbing

2019 The Hague stabbing (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 terrorism, no deaths,

WP:NOTNEWS. No more than a knife attack by a homeless man. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your right to cast a keep !vote, but where's the
WP:OR? "Homeless man" and knife attack are in the article. WWGB (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but random mass stabbings aren't so common in the streets of busy city centres in 21st century Europe. That's why they gain media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stabbing, about 8 million stabbings occurred in 2013. There is zero consensus that Wikipedia should have an article about every crime that receives a 24 hour burst of media coverage, especially when there are zero deaths and zero serious injuries. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But only a small minority of those are mass stabbings, in the street, against strangers. Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

]

Heartland Baptist Bible College

Heartland Baptist Bible College (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 and unaccredited college, does not satisfy

WP:ORG. The references sources available all appear to relate to the school's (former) California property, or to the post-attendance behaviour of its former students. That notable people attended the school does not make the school notable. There do not appear to be any more current sources about the school, and basic information such as number of students is not included in the school's website. Risker (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Well, you've hit the nail on the head. There isn't significant coverage of this private college in either its current existence or its past existence. There's a brief, 2-paragraph mention in a book. There are three articles from a local paper in the early 1990s, one short one about the campus and student rules, and the other two about a land sale the school was trying to get approved. There doesn't seem to be any other independent reporting or information about the school in either its former or current iterations. The arguments in the last AFD were largely based on a much more liberal interpretation of
WP:ORGCRIT that essentially prejudged all high schools and colleges as being de facto notable; that isn't the case anymore, and hasn't been for several years. The majority of references in the article are about the misdeeds of alumni. They are appropriate for the articles about notable alumni, and are actually not relevant to the college; that section probably should be removed from the article on a BLP basis. Risker (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC) NOTE: I forgot to include the two references "demonstrating" that the college participated in intercollegiate sports when located in California. Both articles mention the college only in passing, and are not at all about the college; in fact, they're about totally different college sports programs. Risker (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite improvement, consensus is still on the side of deletion with this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs

List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs (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 does not appear to meet our notability guidelines on

one article's existence on Wikipedia is not a guarantee for the existence of any other article. I'd be happy to merge this into another article, such as the main New Zealand place name list, but I doubt that it is a viable list in of itself. If it is kept the name will have to be changed, but that's secondary and I'd be happy to do that later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. The argument about a single source is not strong. Lots of wiki pages have only one source.
Something is wrong with this webpage I'm typing on. I can't see the other arguemnts while I type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to spin off to a whole different list in order to accommodate a single marking, perhaps the N can be used as a superscript like <sup>N</sup> to produce N. Also, the fact that many articles have only a single source to them is an error on their part, reflected with the {{
that would be a reason to keep, but I have yet to find them. Also, you can see other people's arguments while typing by pressing the "Show preview" button below the edit summary field, and don't forget to sign your posts at the end of them with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried that I haven't had a reply from John and that the article might be deleted at the expiration of the set number of days without further notice. Can someone please explain what's going on? I would like to try to improve the article and the formatting. It needs a table but I don't know how to do that. Kelly222 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the article will be deleted has nothing to do with the state of the article's content, including formatting, but whether you can convince the others that the sourcing available for the topic is adequate for Wikipedia's purposes (I'm personally agnostic towards the second source you've given), which will be decided by the closer (usually an administrator) at the end of the 7 days, although it can be extended (relisted) at the closer's discretion. Here is how you make tables in wiki-markup. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks John. I put more info in and put it in a table. Will you please reconsider your vote and change it from agnostic to keep? The source is a government website. I'm not sure of your reasoning if you say that source is insufficient. As to convincing others, they have not responded to my critque of their reasoning, so on that basis this process is flawed. It isn't a discussion on the merits. So I think the article now needs to stay and hope you agree. Kelly222 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is good, I'm glad you have made such improvements. Please find more sources like the first one if you are able, as it appears to be a critical analysis of the topic of NZSL place names; the second one is a poster that describes some of those names and doesn't necessarily state why those would be significant. Once you are confident that you have found as many such sources as you think you reasonably can (and please put them in the article and not here), let me know and I'll have a look; if I think that it warrants broad reconsideration I can ping (notify) the people who have participated in this discussion if you'd like. Do note, however, that if they don't respond their opinions still count to the extent that the discussion closer will see fit (which might not be at all if the sources are good). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least leaning that way. At first I'm not sure what to make of this. Probably many/all editors here would be sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia should support sign language if there is a reasonable way to do so, like we also choose to support vision-impaired people by providing sound bites / recordings of articles. Simply noting which places have a sign language name doesn't seem helpful to anyone though (not that usefulness is a major criterion for what Wikipedia covers). What is the policy about Wikipedia actually including useful stuff, like, say, a link at the
    Danzig, the article starts off:

    Gdańsk (/ɡəˈdænsk/, also US: /ɡəˈdɑːnsk/, Polish: [ɡdaj̃sk] ; Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig [ˈdantsɪç] ) is a city on the Baltic

    coast ...

And further, if the identification of places having NZSL names defined is of interest, that can be done by use of a category, e.g. create
wp:CLNT, it is probably worth having a list-article about them, showing with bluelinks all those that have articles, and showing by redlinks ones needing articles, and allowing footnotes and photos and more. About the list-article itself, shouldn't each row contain a link to the specific sign language video about that place? --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, maybe some of the "delete" voters are just seeing this as a non-standard list-article somehow. The topic of NZSL placenames seems notable to me, based on just the first source referred to. Maybe move the article to the title NZSL placenames, and give a bit of an intro, then provide the list. --Doncram (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have suggested a potential merger with the main NZ place list article; a merger with the NZSL article is also possible, as would be a dispersal of such content to each place name's article if existent. What would you think about such a merger? I myself will have to mull over this potential information more; also, please note that CLNT only permits such duplication without requiring or even encouraging it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of towns in New Zealand. Certainly of interest, and given that NZSL is an official language in NZ, certainly worth saving, especially is our aim is to be inclusive (there's enough systemic bias on the project without deleting articles such as this one). I'm not convinced it can survive as a stand-alone list, however. The other option might be to transwiki it to one of the other projects. Note - if kept, it will need an extensive tidy up - at the moment it's a shambles. Grutness...wha? 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey, there is something really positive and valuable here, while AFD is an unfortunately horrible/meant/cruel/stultifying/awful/negative/destructive venue that is not well matched to teasing out what can/should be done. I !voted "Keep" but not very strongly above, and am more sure now that this work and/or ideas around it should clearly be saved for Wikipedia. I think this AFD should be closed "Keep" for now, with admonition to get stuff sorted out better, and with delivery of a Nobel peace prize to Kelly222 for getting it started. And referral to whatever office of WMF deals with accessibility issues and to whatever WikiProjects and GLAM subprojects or whatever else can/should be involved constructively in capturing/developing good stuff here, with parties getting set up to work with the NZSL community and the copyright owners of the NZSL dictionary initiative.
About using mini-videos of signs at each NZ place article, I am pretty sure that is a great thing to do. Implementing it well requires more skills than just Kelly22 and I have. For example, some tiny icon needs to be found or designed to be used in an attractive/meaningful minilink, like the little link thingees for pronunciation recordings in the top of the Danzig article. The design needs to either link externally to the minivideo for each place available at the NZSL dictionary, or, probably better, arrangements should be made to import all of the separate videos in some format to Commons, or for new minivideos to be produced, funded by a grant if necessary. There needs to be some guideline about which articles get these new NZSL links: certainly NZ place names are naturally included, but not all place names worldwide, and probably some other NZ-specific foods, songs, monuments, other NZ cultural matters.
About formatting of the list-article, there is much to improve, but that does not need to be sorted at AFD. It is clear to me that Kelly222's first attempt with it was a good effort, but they appear not to be familiar with list formatting and the potential of what lists can do. I made some edits to introduce a column title row, to begin a column providing links to the actual specific NZSL sign videos instead of just asserting they exist and leaving it to the reader to look them up in the dictionary, and began wikilinking the place names themselves. It is not clear to me what is the default/current ordering, because it has several long alphabetical sequences but keeps restarting without any clarity what those are. To me it seems obvious there should be a full alphabetical ordering of English language names as one option, ordering by Maori names, and some ordering by size of cities/towns and geography (i.e. group them by north island vs. south island etc., leading off with the biggest cities and working down to remote places, or working from north to south, or similarly). In the draft, there was confusing usage of 5 or more separate rows for "Auckland" alone, widely separated in the non-sortable list, which all were identical, conveying that there are 5 or more different NZSL signs for it, but not providing the signs, when IMHO all the 5 signs ought to be provided in just one merged row. And there are several more towns having pairs or trios of signs, which rows need to be merged. And there probably should be a column for, or a "Notes" column should be used for, explaining the NZSL naming strategy for each sign. Like there should be info/commentary about the signs themselves: what is the literal translation i.e. is this one a combo of signs for "large" and for "rock" plus a pouring-a-pitcher-of-water motion and why is that the derivation, how is this one a sign used primarily by the older adult community, who invented this one clever sign and when, and the like, with detailed sourcing.
About outright deletion, that should be off the table. At a minimum, the list-article is good and needed as a WikiProject workpage towards addressing all the separate NZ articles.
About sourcing and properness of a list, i think this can be improved. The good "first source" is fine, and I think there must exist papers and studies and teaching materials about the NZSL place names, for example organizing them by strategy of naming (like how the sign for "
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP
. Note we do have list-articles labelled as glossaries, such as a glossary of architectural terms, and there are other precedents for how this can be re-packaged a bit. There are higher policy level concerns here, rising up to the worldwide WMF level, which should not be short-changed by a few uninformed-on-these-kind-of-matters random editors at AFD.
Warning to anyone tempted to close this as "Delete": if you do that, I think you should be, will likely be, ridiculed for being a horrible ambassador of Wikipedia towards to the deaf community. Think Clint Eastwood: "make my day". Like whoever removed all female writers out of the category of American writers, to put them only into a lesser subcategory, which was once an incredibly poorly handled political matter. I see news articles and blogs and twitter campaigns and discussion on The View and other talk shows blasting you, in your near future. :) (Okay, I mean this lightly, not as a threat that I would be involved in carrying out, but still.)
Bottom-line: This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia can be great for, can be great about, and removing this list-article rather than giving some encouragement and TLC to it would be a great mistake. With some simple first-level cleanup, which I am myself willing to do, this is absolutely fine and good as a list-article in mainspace Wikipedia. With some kind of later second-level improvement I sincerely believe that it can/will be a learned/scholarly great contribution, taking advantage of Wikipedia list features, Wikipedia editors' creativity, and what the great NZSL community has to offer and is probably willing/wanting to share/integrate better into the biggest/best encyclopedia of the world. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow users to engage with the lengthy "keep" arguments; the "delete" opinions appear rather cursory to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My delete vote firmly stands as I mentioned earlier, the content is already expressed on another article. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a directory, and the addition of NZSL external links to the article doesn't give the article any more encyclopedic value. There is always one editor who writes an essaylike reason in a a valiant effort to retain an article, we should not be swayed by the length of arguments. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I withdraw my earlier suggestion that the list be merged into List of towns in New Zealand as the list now contains links to videos/diagrams which would be unsuitable for that article. I think the current list might be more appropriate to be hosted at a site such as www.nzsl.nz, as it is essentially a list of NZSL dictionary entries. I would welcome external links to such an externally hosted list from the List of towns in New Zealand and the article New Zealand Sign Language.-gadfium 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Timtempleton below advises us that the externally hosted list exists, so I have firmed up my position to delete.-gadfium 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the arguments made since I earlier voted for deletion. I note that the format of the article has improved greatly, and that in the tabulated form new columns of info have been added. I note the passion of supporters of the article. However, I still think the article is not notable and should be deleted. Nurg (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the lede did a better job of explaining why this is worthy of being kept, the info is already being maintained at [[34]], and this seems to be unnecessarily redundant. As an extreme way of making this point, it would be similar if someone wanted to create a list called "list of films displayed at Rotten Tomatoes" or at IMDB. A template, like Template:NYSE American, but linking to the video on the www.nzsl.nz site would be a more scalable and effective way of sharing this info. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

]

Rajashree Choudhury

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

No significant coverage and all mentions are in RS(s) are for being the wife of

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WBGconverse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WBGconverse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WBGconverse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's not quite so; she is notable for winning both the first Indian National Yoga Championship and the first
    Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup; she is also notable for co-founding the United States Yoga Federation (USA Yoga) and the International Yoga Sports Federation (IYSF); so her notability is not solely based on her former husband (Bikram Choudhury). I'd have thought these four claims would be sufficient for a Keep, but if not then a Merge to BC's article would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Too many "heck"s and "near-absolutely"s and "gazillion"s for an orderly discussion, really: they are quite unnecessary. However, the competition is, as the article says, the National Yoga Championship held by the Yoga Federation of India from 1979, so I'd have thought that more than clear enough already; it's also covered in the more reliable parts of the Indian press. Where I do agree with you is that RC seems to have functioned very closely as an adjunct of her husband during the marriage, and since it seems she won the competition(s) she founded, that in itself is worth noting in a paragraph of his article (remarkable, actually), implying a MERGE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the obvious places (India, her own/Bikram Yoga sites) are all flaky or dependent. The [Daily Telegraph] mentions she is the "five-time winner of the All-India Yoga Championship between 1979 to 1983", i.e. every year from 1979 to 1983. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bikram Choudhury. I am not seeing notability in the sources presented. Doing well in a non-notable competition mentioned in passing, and being married to a notable person, are not sufficient. There is no need to merge, as the subject is already discussed in enough detail in the target article. BD2412 T 15:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I've added it there since this began. A redirect is indeed all that remains to be put in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 04:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Taborin Technical School Foundation, Inc.

Gabriel Taborin Technical School Foundation, Inc. (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've gone searching and despite the contention of the order's main web site I can't shake the impression that this community in Davao City and its school have ceased to exist. The Facebook page being abandoned for 18 months and the domain name registration having expired certainly justify some suspicion. Yes, there are reviews on the Google Maps listing as recently as a month ago but none with any text content for a year and even those are unconvincing. As a die-hard Inclusionist I hate instigating these proceedings, but passing by and doing nothing sat worse with me. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article, and redirects (following a merge) are cheap. BD2412 T 05:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillotine (character)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that based on the current state of the article or your review of discovered sources above? -2pou (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet more fancruft. Not enough in-depth coverage from RS to show notability. Of the sources mentioned above by 2pou, 3 are clearly not reliable sources, and the fourth, comicsverse.com I'm not so sure about either. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      /Film/Screen Rant/Collider
      And Newsarama... well, that is the one I really wanted to point out to you. They have an awesome name, I know, but they are one of the most used sources for comics material out there. I would probably equate sites like Newsarama, CBR, and Bleeding Cool as three of the most referenced sites similar to the Hollywood trades Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood, especially with such wonderful reporting that comes from Deadline such as this. Newsarama even won an Eisner award for their journalism in the industry. Yes, this is a much smaller niche industry than Hollywood, but it is respected in the industry.
      Again, your opinion is your opinion, I just wanted to respectfully point this out in case you participate if many more comics related discussions, and since I noticed you are a new page reviewer. -2pou (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 13:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schneider (designer)

Mark Schneider (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no info about the designer. It is about his grandfather and uncles. The designer appears to have won some obscure industry-specific (possibly paid) awards, but no indication of

WP:GNG except for a few publicity pieces. Toddst1 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep. If anyone wants to put the sources inside the article, that would be nice.

]

Jerry Jones Jr.

Jerry Jones Jr. (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)

Stumbled across this one - I don't have the knowledge to be absolutely sure, but it's been marked as possibly not notable since 2010. I can find coverage but it's always linked to the Dallas Cowboys, so I wonder if any relevant info about Jones should be included in that article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Pollock

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

Fails GNG. As mentioned by multiple editors on the talk page, there’s a dearth of significant coverage by secondary reliable sources on this person. A Google search fails to find any mention of this person as well. Transcendence (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Transcendence (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a failed attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion. All sources availlable are primary sources from the person's personal website or interviews/self published articles. Michepman (talk) 16:45, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Büthker

Hans Büthker (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 appaent notability outside of his company DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School (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 Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that because an article is long it must involve OR is ludicrous. I scan read the site I mentioned- and found no copyvios, before that is claimed. This is average length article for a B standard following WPSCH/AG.
That 159 editors (sorry 160) have contributed does prove some sort of notability in its self. It is the only Baptist School in Sha Tin with a unique spiritual offer. ClemRutter (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The site "SSP2018" contains "The school information is provided and vetted by schools.". This is absolutely not "independent of the school" so I am not sure why this would be stated as fact. Listing that "Google provides 224,000 results" does not prove anything. I searched a high school I am familiar with and it returned "About 2,610,000 results (0.61 seconds)".
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. Further information on schools and notability can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
. I am sure, since you are listed as a coordinator, you already know most of this though.
Here is a suggestion: Instead of becoming frustrated or asserting that comments on so much unsupported contented being possible OR is ludicrous, pick three of the "204,000" reported Google hits, that are actually
but I like it! as it does currently fail WP:NSHOOL and\or Wikipedia:ORG. Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Google result is nothing. Sometimes it just inflated by mirror site or junk or just plain wrong from their web API. If among "204,000" results there are some
WP:RS that have in-depth coverage, it is worth to keep. If all the result are from facebook social network or content farm or just routine mention, it is not worth to keep it. Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cunard, one source is an interview of the principal , which is between primary and secondary source? Another one is about a student of that school (and also an interview), which nothing in detail for that school. Another one is about an event related to the overseer of the school, Hong Kong Baptist Convention, fails to register the list of directors. So the school itself is routinely mentioned. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly bigexam.hk not a reliable source. Any "metric" site for HK secondary schools were not reliable and dubious COI as possible ransom to the school by asking them to pay for a better scores. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milin Dokthian

Milin Dokthian (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)

Still the same issues: The subject has no personal work outside the band; no major roles in films, tv shows, etc; no significant contribution in any entertainment field; and no established notability that warrants a stand-alone article; thus her article should either be deleted or redirected to

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:47, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viz.ai

Viz.ai (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)

Classic startup. Fails

WP:ORGCRIT. Refs are run of the mill business news, press releases. scope_creepTalk 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geewhiz I'm surprised and will explain it to you. I will go through each of the first 10 references and explain why they are dodgy and unacceptable. The first reference must prove and should prove the article is notable, but it doesn't here. None of them do. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact when you look at all of them, it is the same press release that has been sent to at least 22 separate news sites. scope_creepTalk 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:48, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relists, there was no consensus to Delete, but no strong consensus in any other direction; the AfD was not helped by a confusing nom with no clear rationale/direction of their own (and who did not participate further in the AfD post nom); no prejudice to a future re-list or possible Merge.

]

Raita algorithm

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

The tuning only goes into the comparison loop, something already covered by BMH's inter-implementation variations. (I actually *had* to do it for BMH to account for the variations in implementations.) Artoria2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not all sources demonstrate notability and there is a consensus here that while sources exist about this album they do not demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Into Life

Escape Into Life (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 for artist or album. The 65 Google hits[45] reveal no good reliable source giving significant attention to this record. The best would be a very short "review" in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel[46].

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]

Below please find additional reliable sources for artist and album notability:

  • Album & Artist listed on industry standard Allmusic[52]
  • Release date on Pause & Play[53]
  • Legitimate music blog album review[54]
  • Another music blog[55]
  • Artist and Album listed in MTV Italy[56]
  • Artist is a band member of notable band Hautewerk[57]
  • Performance at KUCI 88.9 FM[58]
  • Interview and performance at Laguna Beach's FM93.5[59]
  • Performance at the OC Fair[60]
  • Headlining performance in Nanyang, China[61]
  • Festival news coverage[62]
  • Album listed as produced by Ed Stasium (Ramones, Talking Heads, Living Color, Mick Jagger)[63]

Highfifan (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of these give no notability, as they are not reliable sources, or simple listings of the artist without actual commentary (Allmusic, Pause and Play), or reprints of press releases (the text of the Chinese blog[64] is the same as another one you list[65], "Tom set out to craft a diverse and accomplished record that will please rock fans of all backgrounds" and so on). The "presence in Europe" is an announcement of a concert he would give in a café[66] on sites where everyone can announce events, not an indication of actual notability or success. The same applies to South America; it's a concert in a café in Santiago de Chile. ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I want more policy-based keeps here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:41, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blount County Rescue Squad

Blount County Rescue Squad (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)

NN non-profit organization. There is some coverage in local community newspapers. The article has been tagged for notability for five years and still has no references other than its own website. Does not meet

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MB 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Related/non-independent sources do not count towards notability. And
WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" MB 19:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That wasn't news at all. It was an entertainment show called "Rescue Trucks" that was part of "Ford's Truck Weekend in America" and according to a blurb about the episode, "true to its name, 'Rescue Trucks' largely focused on the trucks BCRS uses to respond to accidents". Per
WP:ORGDEPTH, "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Still no in-depth/significant coverage of the organization. MB 01:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 05:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:39, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I would recommend that a bit of time be given to the article before another deletion nomination, to let those editors who believe the article can be improved with reliable sources do so. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra Menarini

Iskra Menarini (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 biography of a living person is unsourced in English. It was tagged for BLP PROD by another editor in 2016; this was declined on the basis that the version of the article in Italian does have sources. However, I do not see that the sources in Italian meet en.wiki standards for a biographical article. I don't see what's reliable about any of them. —S Marshall T/C 12:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources seem to be not about her, but about Dalla. Notability not established, and we shuldn't keep a largely unsourced BLP around. Sandstein 11:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the information in the article, it seems that this musician may meet
    WP:MUSICBIO#6: "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". She certainly was a "reasonably prominent member" of Lucio Dalla's group, being his vocalist for 24 years, including on a single, Attenti al lupo [it], that was No 1 for 4 weeks in 1990/91. She was also vocalist with Samuele Bersani, Vasco Rossi, Raffaella Carrà, and others, on albums/singles at least some of which also reached the top 10. The article now has sources. It certainly needs editing, and it would be good if someone could find the offline sources used in the Italian article, and indeed find other offline sources, but she does appear notable. I will try to edit the article and add citations for as much information as possible from online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After two AfDs in close succession with a total of four relists, there is no consensus to Delete, and although an acknowledged borderline case, there has been an increasing lean to Keep.

]

Australian Football International

Australian Football International (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)

Speedy renomination after the

run-of-the-mill low-circulation local newspaper article profiling a local. 7 is borderline but makes such a blatant factual error in the first sentence (claiming Footy 9s is an AFL expansion format - it's not at all affiliated with the league) I'm doubtful it's reliable. – Teratix 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - enough to just meet GNG. This AfD should probably be closed purely for the reason that it is improper to relist straight away - the closing administrator relisted the discussion twice so more than an adequate opportunity was given for others to participate. Bookscale (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I specifically consulted with the closing administrator prior to opening this to check whether speedy renomination was appropriate. Keep !voters so far have not identified precisely which sources constitute a GNG pass. – Teratix 05:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been tired, I meant to say you Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for clarifying. Bookscale (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence that there is a pass of GNG here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 04:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:35, 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 08:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harker, Florida

Harker, Florida (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)

Town does not seem to exist. The provided location covers a farm and a swamp, and no buildings, and I have found no references to the place, it is not in any US Census databases. Article has no content other than describing the town's supposed phyical location. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the official US gazetteer from 1992, but I think that's similar or equivalent to the GNIS database as it listed subdivisions as populated places. I've done several very specific newspaper searches and it never gets mentioned. It's on Google Maps, but the two closest buildings to the point have Immokalee city addresses. A historic aerial photo search possibly shows up to two buildings in 1952, but no mention of the buildings on the 1959 topo map. Interestingly the place continues to appear on the 2015 topo map. Do you have any idea what years it would have been populated? SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page or two on the community in the book. If someone had a hard-copy we would have a lot more info. But the railroad was built circa 1921. It was abandoned in the 80s, but most of it south of Harker was abandoned in the mid-50s. So my guess is that the peak popoulation was in the 30s-40s. MB 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 04:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c), at 02:34, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Castro

Barbie Castro (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)

Advert for non-notable entertainment figure. Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against including this character on a list or creating a redirect, but there was no consensus for that in this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrod

Amrod (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 fictional character. Lacks substantial in-universe significance and in-depth discussion in RS. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.