Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 November	17 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep per very clear WP:Consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk Barn

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

No indication of notability. Fails

WP:GNG Catorce2016 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of media coverage of this company. Examples: Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative, Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers, Bulk Barn has embraced the Zero Waste movement, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Raises Record Amount for Alzheimer Society Fundraising, Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. Takes the Lead in the Alzheimer Society's 18th Annual Coffee Break(R) Fundraiser, Bulk Barn plans to open store on Yates Street, Bulk Barn reopens after renovations, Xylitol Canada Announces Retail Distribution Through Bulk Barn Stores Across Canada. That's just after 10 seconds of a web search. There's likely plenty more that's not accessible online. The stub article as is needs work, but the subject is notable. Mind matrix 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Article needs work, but I'm pretty sure the subject meets the notability requirements. Ahiijny (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the subject is notable, a quick google search yields many results and the chain has over 250 locations. This seems like just cause to be considered notable. I am working on the page more and more as this is just the start. I hope you consider my point of view. Dellwood546 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that an article about this company was previously deleted (per
COI ). Some may have been paid editors, as they had also edited other company articles to add material that is clearly not encyclopedic (either in content or tone). Others edited only (the previous version of) this article. The original version was a decent stub, but in early 2011 the addition of marketing fluff began. Irrespective of this, see my 'keep' comment above. Mind matrix 19:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete per
WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. So, strong delete on failing that policy. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that the links I provided above are by no means exhaustive; as I stated above, those were what I found "after 10 seconds of a web search". Also, note that in each of the articles I linked, Bulk Barn was the primary subject of the article (ie - there were no "passing mention coverage"). The only primary source was the MarketWatch press release; the same information was reported in news articles elsewhere (and coverage of the previous year's donation is one of the links above). Your !vote should be based on your own research into the subject, not on the subset of results I posted from my search. I just conducted another quick search and found mentions of the company in the Franchise Law Journal (volume 23), in the book "Defending Class Actions in Canada" (which references the case "909787 Ontario Ltd v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd"), in the book Smart Shopping Montreal (this is a trivial mention, I know), and more. Unfortunately, much of Canadian business reporting is either paywalled or offline, so building decent articles about Canadian companies (other than the largest ones, of course) often requires a lot of effort to find reliable sources. I think this company likely passes that threshold, but I don't have access to ProQuest or other such sources to search newspaper archives, let alone archives of other sources. Mind matrix 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV isn't explicitly written in the policy, I'm know sure, but to me, it ought to be. If anything, our notability standards are too lax. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

significant coverage

- included for convenience - bolding indicates emphasis added

simple listings or compilations, such as:

of telephone numbers, addresses, directions, event times, shopping hours,
of office locations, branches, franchises, or subsidiaries,
of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders (see above for #No inherited notability),
of product or service offerings,
of product instruction manuals, specifications, or certifications,
of patents, copyrights, clinical trials, or lawsuits,
of event schedules or results (such as theater performance schedule, score table of a sporting event, listing of award recipients),
of statistical data,

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:

of changes in share or bond prices,
of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts,
of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance,
of the participation in industry events, such as trade fairs or panel discussions,
of the shareholders' meetings or other corporate events,
of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,
of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,

brief or passing mentions, such as:

of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products,
of sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work,

in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources,

as an example of a type of company or product being discussed (e.g. "In response to the protests, various companies, such as Acme Inc, have pledged to address working conditions in their factories")
inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists,
inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as
databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs,
coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below),
presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel,
other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.

The examples above are not meant to be exhaustive.

Keep. Passes
WP:SIGCOV
. The company has been the subject of multiple independent peer reviewed journal articles mostly pertaining to various legal actions against the company for human rights violations. Additionally, the company's products have been used in many food and agricultural science publications which, while not directly about the company, do indicate some notability as well. See:

"Recent Developments in Canadian Franchise Class Actions"; Thomas, Evan; Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2016, Vol.35(3), pp.399-418
"Defendant class actions and the right to opt out: lessons for Canada from the United States"; Morabito, Vince; Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Summer, 2004, Vol.14(2), p.197(52)
"An Updated Road Map to Entering the Canadian Market"; Weinberg, Larry ; Shaw, Geoffrey; Franchise Law Journal, Spring 2008, Vol.27(4), pp.253-263
"Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision: Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, 2019 HRTO 803 (CanLII)"; Financial Law Reporter, July 10, 2019

Additionally, the company and its products have independent reviews in the following:

"WASTE NOT, WANT NOT"; Kucharsky, Danny; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2016, Vol.130(8), pp.13-14
"Keeping it loose"; Harris, Rebecca; Canadian Grocer, Dec 2012/Jan 2013, p.17

There were many more sources that could be added, but I think this is enough to satisfy

WP:GNG. The human rights violations alone lend notability as the public has a vested interest in learning about that topic as it relates to public safety concerns in the food supply.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to XfD Closer: These journal article sources should be examined closely by downloading each source and ensuring none of them just reference Bulk Barn either in a passing mention, a tangential way, or in the journal article's bibliography. I'm still not convinced any of these sources provided by the above editors pass. Note, too, that a single legal decision(s) are considered trivial coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 20:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:AGF. Additionally, look at the years of coverage. This isn't just one case with articles dating from 2004-2019.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

always assume good faith, so reject that assertion otherwise. I didn't download them because I may or may not have access to them at all. It would be helpful, when including sources, to include a relevant annotation for each article, to those without access and for convenience, that describes how each article mentions the subject of this Wikipedia article (Bulk Barn). Sorry if any misunderstanding taken, though. Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I was pretty clear in my communication that the organization has been accused of human rights violations in multiple class action law suites over the past two decades which have significant coverage in peer reviewed journal articles provided above.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, Yes, that's clear, but for clarity, I meant the class actions. Are they covering Bulk Barn specifically, or just mentioning/referencing Bulk Barn in a brief paragraph or two? The latter would not count whereas the former certainly would. Doug Mehus T·C 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles deal with Ontario Ltd. v Bulk Barn Foods Ltd. which was a class action lawsuit by franchise holders against the parent company. The case is the central focus of both articles. The third article also deals with this case and its wider implications in doing business in Canada. It was an important case. The last article is about a bundled class action case Sambrano v. Bulk Barn Foods Limited, which deals with human rights violations and food safety concerns. In each article, the company is a central focus.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 23:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems clearly notable, coverage linked above alone is more than enough to pass the GNG. The current article needs significant wok, but that is not a reason for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources that focused not so much on NCIX as a company but their data breaches and resulting lawsuits. Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, may be relevant - found this: BBF was involved in the first class action case (1999) between franchisee and franchisor in Ontario - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Horton's class action lawsuits, among others. Doug Mehus T·C 15:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per
WP:SIGCOV 250 locations... Media coverage of this company. Example: Bulk Barn takes promising step toward reusable containers and Charlottetown Bulk Barn store part of new waste-free initiative. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CORPDEPTH
is most definitely failed.

At best, if you're concerned with
preserving editor attribution, I'd support retargeting to Bulk foods#Retailers with an Rcat "to section" identified. Alternatively, I'd potentially support a retitle-ing of this article to be focused on Bulk Barn's apparent eco-friendly efforts (similar to what we did weith NCIX post-AfD close). Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This does meet Wikipedia:Notability as there are ample amounts of significant coverage. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virtual reality headset. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VR HMD mount

VR HMD mount (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 references in the article support the existence of the terminology "virtual reality head mounted display mount". No reliable sources come up from a Google search of the phrase, likely because it does not exist since it is a mouthful. Most coverage of Google Cardboard, Google Daydream, and Samsung Gear VR simply refer to them as VR headsets. The
VR HMD mount article redirect to that one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
original research. I see no need for a redirect as this isn't a likely search term.4meter4 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to Keep, but not clear if a Redirect is useful if there is consensus that the term itself is potentially OR; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Up to 33 pageviews/day shows that some-one is using it as a search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me those are visits from articles that have Wikilinked to the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep , or at least there was no consensus to delete this article. Editors disagreed if
WP:NOTABILITY had been established sufficiently, and how major/minor the character was. As a middle ground, I recommend to consider merging this article into a list of characters as an editorial measure. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Umar (Marvel Comics)

Umar (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) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all first party sourcing and writing. Fails
WP:INU. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable comic character, per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*I am more lenient with keeping this one. A major Doctor Strange enemy IMO. I would help save it if I had time. A full delete doesn’t sound necessary. There is List of Marvel Comics characters: U for brief mention of the character. But that’s just me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per...what though? You’re not citing anything, policy, guideline, sourcing, or...anything. You didn’t give a reason. Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning (even though I shouldn’t have to explain it) is that I feel there should be coverage on the character as she is a recurring enemy of Doctor Strange. I already explained I would look for some if I wasn’t busy, Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You provided zero evidence. Until you do, this is nothing but a
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES violation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sounds like you are being oblivious but I just linked sources on the bottom and had a lot of google news results of the character. I said I was busy at the time to not do it. That’s all! Jhenderson 777 02:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of those are supposed to be significant coverage? I spotchecked a few of your
bombardment of sources below, and just saw extremely brief passing mentions and listical entries. What I saw is not a convincing argument for meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I already knew you would say that. I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it. But those sources did say stuff for a reception section at least that I can put down. As I said before GNG can be subjective because that fits my criteria for notability. It wouldn't even be a surprise if she is a character in the next Doctor Strange film potentially but I am not using that for a basis. If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays. Then let me point out your double standard that you are not complaining about all the
WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP etc. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you not spend much time at AFD or something? It’s not particularly controversial to assert that short listicle entries aren’t meeting the GNG, nor is it a “double standard” if I don’t question every person on their stance. I just found your stance particularly weak, and it’s telling that you’re spending more time complaining about me than you are providing better sources or formulating a better argument for meeting the GNG than “well it passes because my standards are super low”. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were the first one to complain about a vote. Also no I don’t spend much time of AFDs like I used to. I most likely like to edit and improve articles. Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jhenderson777 or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. BOZ (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering Doctor Strange only namedrops the character one time in a parenthetical, I don't think Umar can be considered one of his major enemies. When templates are discounted, there are 21 incoming links from article bodies. Of those 21, at least 10 are lists. Spot checking the remaining 11 reveals passing mentions only. This doesn't meet my criteria for being notable within the fiction, but I don't oppose a redirect to something that already exists, like List of comic book supervillain debuts, which contains all the real world information about the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of the character's status as a "major" enemy

Judging by a namedrop? Really? While it can be debated she is notable, she plays too much an important role not just for Doctor Strange but for Dormammu and Clea too. How is she not considered an major enemy to you is beyond me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources that acknowledge the Doctor Strange villain. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] "Umar is one of Doctor Strange's most iconic villains" "being an unpredictable threat to Doctor Strange" Shuma-Gorath, the Beyonder, Kang the Conqueror, Mephisto, Umar – there are plenty of menaces that occupy other planes of existence than our own just ripe for a massive, on-screen punch-up. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

These are some sources. Not even all of it. All I did was use Google News. "I can do this all day!" Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be an argument for notability, or just the subjective major/minor classification? Not a one of those helps establish notability if you're arguing from that standpoint. TTN (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Notability is a subjective term sometimes. Especially with comic book characters. I promise you if there is an adaption of said character in the MCU than magically she would be notable to you because there will be sources talking about her. What I proved is that she is not an obscure Marvel comic book character like what was claimed. also I said that was only some of the sources. So don’t argue she is not notable just because all the sources claimed. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm judging in-universe notability by incoming links. The point of having a list entry for a character without real-world notability is to serve as a focal point for information about a character that is linked from other articles. If the number of incoming links is low or their quality is low (such as the single parenthetical mention on Doctor Strange), there's no need to have a list entry. It may not be a perfect system, but it's an objective one. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly that judgement was wrong as the sources tell a different story. Maybe not in notability but you your yourself was saying she is not much a Doctor Strange villain just because of a namedrop. Which sources trump anything you can judge by whatever Wikipedia did. I wasted my time looking for sources that will never be notable enough for anybody here just to prove the point that she is a major enemy of Doctor Strange. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an alternative method for judging in-universe importance, I'd be happy to hear it. To clarify a point, I don't judge her unimportant because the Doctor Strange article namedrops her. I judge her unimportant because the Doctor Strange article only mentions her one time, in the "artifacts" section, as a parenthetical example that adds nothing to the article. I would expect a major enemy to be mentioned at least once in his biography, preferably with enough context to understand why she's important to his story. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: You could at least read why I thought of her as essential on the article. Or at least read my sources pointed out. She is essential for the origin of the Marvel multiverse which she was a primary focus on the stories that focused on her origin alongside Dormammu. She Clea's (Doctor Strange's Main love interest) mother and Dormammu (Doctor Strange archenemy) sister. Those connections at least I would reconsider her as a merged character not a deleted character. Outside of those in-universe (which I know is a no-no) she is fairly recurring outside of Doctor Strange titles. She even had a relationship with the Hulk that one source I think I pointed out mentioned. She has been around from the Silver Age is still being utilized during the Modern Age. She has been in about at least 50 issues and (despite the article not saying as much) there is alternate versions of her and one media adaptation of her. She might even appear in the Doctor Strange sequel. Only time will tell. Already there is news sources striving and/or pointing out she would fit in the MCU as a villain. If she isn’t a core member of Doctor Strange's rogues gallery judging by what I tell you. I already pointed out her being in top Doctor Strange enemies on news sources. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you think she's his major enemy. I also understand that speculative articles and listicles about Doctor Strange sometimes include her. Nevertheless, I do not find her familial connections to important characters significant. I do not find the existence of alternate versions of her significant, especially considering her appearances in a comic book that deals with alternate dimensions on a regular basis. I am not impressed by her appearance in "at least 50 issues" from a company that has published 60+ comics per month for the last 30 years. Most importantly, I could not find a single article on Wikipedia that would be worse off if the information at Umar (Marvel Comics) was deleted. This is in contrast to a character like Infinity or Kronos. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s your opinion your entitled to. Though it be wrong. :p It’s hard to believe you voted keep on an obscure character like Magpie a while back but delete on this one. Me thinks your system is broken. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptation to TV or film pretty much guarantees that reliable sources will cover the character in enough detail to build a reception section. For obscure characters, this also means that comic-oriented news sites will run primers explaining who the character is, which can help build a publication section. This does lead to some unexpected outcomes (and unfair ones, when it's a character I like that's being tossed). Trust me, I didn't expect to vote keep when I went to the Magpie discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not defending the character because I am a fan. I am defending the character because she fits my criteria of being notable for comic book characters though. Which apparently is getting really subjective. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge short summary to List of Marvel Comics characters: U. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying merge not delete. I still want keep but she is significant enough Marvel character to mention outside of a namedrop. Plus if she appears in the Doctor Strange sequel then we should use someplace to link her. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. @Jhenderson777: is right on his statements here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please express a valid reason. Neither you nor Jhenderson have yet. Cite a policy and explain how it’s met please. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just let people vote for crying out loud. There is two violations of deleters anyway. I am not replying to them in this page am I? I figur it’s fair. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor character meriting a (minor) article. Definitely needs to be trimmed way the heck down, but
WP:DINC. Ford MF (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Not even remotely policy based. The concern isn’t “cleanup”, the problem is failing the
WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you seem how many AFD's this editor has been doing? Could of fooled me if he ain’t trying to cleanup an entire topic. GNG is getting really subjective now. Me and another editor thinks it notable ready it seems. But I know you will beg to differ. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care how many AFDs they’ve been part of - here, they did not cite or explain how any sort of policy or guideline was met. I mean, read what he said. It’s plain as day he cited nothing. Your defenses are baffling. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am going to back away from responding to you because you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds. Because even though I am stressed a little now. I personally still have a level head and i am not trying to be mean. Just clarifying since you told me to "calm down" one time. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you keep interpreting my comments like this. I’m not upset or angry in the least. I’m just making very simple, basic comments here. I don’t get upset when I need to inform people of failing to follow through on the very basics of AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did research and added
WP:DINC. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

As I mentioned on the Notability talk page, you have added trivial, topical, dime-a-dozen articles that have no particular weight. Random people speculating on future Marvel movies, Top 10 lists, and simple one sentence mentions do not establish notability. These are mass produced drivel, and none of them even mention the character in great capacity in the first place. TTN (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is significant coverage. Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted. Just by what the sources are. Stop edit conflicting my opinion anyway. You can just ignore my vote. Also some of those had subsection of the character. They aren’t just trivial mentions. So don’t deceive some editors by what you think the sources are. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all sources are equal. Websites that pump out dozens of non-news articles on pop culture items every day without stopping have less quality than those that actually care about editorial standards. It doesn't mean there is absolutely no place for them ever, but it does mean that they have less weight. Any article that puts in more than a sentence is simply recounting in-universe details on the character. This is less to change your mind and more to make others aware that these are trivial sources. The issue here is that you have it in your mind that a subjectively major character in-universe must translate to notable on Wikipedia, so you're taking anything you can find to make that a reality. TTN (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Move on and let other editors have different opinions for a change. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have you not given a valid “speedy” keep reason, you’ve now given two bolded stances, which isn’t allowed. Please calm down, the closing admin is going to see right through all this. You’re not even trying to reconcile your stance with policy. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You are accusing me of doing that on purpose. I am not trying to fool an administrator!!! You’re the one that needs to calm down because you just violated
Wp:Agf. All I have to do is cross the old message but I figured I didn’t need to. I said I changed my vote. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
All I did is objectively and simply point out that you left two bolded stances concurrently active at the time. That’s not an AGF violation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounded to me like you implied I am being deceiving to an administrator. Which is not assuming good faith IMO. If not what you meant I apologize. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has now been established with citations of twelve secondary sources, and detailed information from those sources on that character's status as iconic, fan favorite villain. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the specific sources that show that the subject meets the
WP:BOMBARD issues so far, where the sources given don’t really illustrate significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

LOL me thinks the editor protests too much about everything I post here. Yes he did use some of my pointed out sources so I guess we both bombarded the article with these sources that just don’t illustrate notability enough good enough for some. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Misdirection aside, it’s usually not a good sign when there’s not a single person who can identify multiple specific GNG-satisfying sources after multiple requests to do so... Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why that can be? Is it maybe you don’t want to be convinced it is notable? Could we change your mind that she is a notable fictional character and/or shouldn’t be deleted? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To recap: I ask you for policy-based rational, you respond with baseless complaining and nonsense? What are you doing over there? Has this historically worked for you at AFD? Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not complaining. In fact I am obviously being just silly now with pop culture references because you are being way too serious with everything I type. Let's put a smile on that face! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, but I didn’t need an explanation to know that you’re wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant babbling. Can you provide a specific policy based explanation for your stance or not? Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit was Nightscream's. So I guess I don’t don’t know. Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines and vote keep because I think they are notable. I guess it’s because I don’t edit video game articles like you enough and edit comic book related articles instead and (heaven forbid) I am a fan. At least Nightscream is an admin like you I guess. I want to hear your opinions together. So let’s try this again. Rabbit season! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
( Nightscream is not an admin for the record. Not that it’s relevant to his !vote, but I thought I’d notify you, since it appears to mean something to you for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

He was at one time I believe. Not that it matters or do I care though. You are wrong again in your assumptions. I am going to stop falling for your bait now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you state something (“Nightscream is an admin”), I note that your statement was objectively incorrect, (he is not) and you somehow attempt to make me out to be the bad guy for it?I have no idea what “assumptions” you’re accusing me of having. I was again only stating basic facts. Sergecross73 msg me 04:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again stop taking every single comment I am making seriouly like you are. Good night man! We are getting off topic now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Can i vote TNT on the AfD, and not the article? This is overwhelming =P -2pou (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't stand that this AFD was started. I have never seen people antagonized for trying to save an article so much too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was pinged with the request to review the article since my vote few day ago. The 'Critical reception' is the only section that is relevant for the purpose of establishing notability. I reviewed [7] (few sentences), [8] (mention in passing in a single sentence shared with other characters), [9] and others and I am sorry, I am still not impressed. Nothing here is close to in-depth coverage, it's all a variation of fictional character biography and 'it would be cool if she appeared in a movie since she is bad ass'. Sorry, that's not enough to make her encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm regularly complaining that our notability standards for comic characters are way too low, and particularly so for DC and Marvel. Howevever, in this case, it seems to meet notability.

Should
Clea or Dormammu be deleted likewise? Because I would see all three of these as having a comparable foundation for notability. They are part of the Doctor Strange universe, they are long-established historically, they appear adequately often to be significant in-universe and even (within the somewhat less-than academic world of comics lit-crit) they're commented on in review articles. Are any of the claims made in this article somehow false? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue of notability is an article by article case, so other comparable characters have to prove their own way. The issue with this article in particular is that the quality of the sources gathered is abysmal. It's a bunch of single mention clickbait with no substance. Some examples include:

The 10 Worst Enemies Stephen Strange Has Ever Faced - Bottom of the barrel, hyper-focused top ten list from a site that released 22 "Top X" lists yesterday.

15 Superheroes Who Had Supervillain Lovers - That someone even thought to include this in the article is baffling.

ROGUES' GALLERY: DOCTOR STRANGE'S TOP TEN VILLAINS - Formulaic, repeated, hyper focused top ten videos.

Clea, the underrated Sorcerer Supreme - An article about a related character that only mentions the subject of the article in relation to the plot.

MCU speculation with one sentence - "Shuma-Gorath, the Beyonder, Kang the Conqueror, Mephisto, Umar – there are plenty of menaces that occupy other planes of existence than our own just ripe for a massive, on-screen punch-up."

MCU Speculation with two name drops of no importance,

These have no substance. They're mostly mass produced clickbait. They are being used to source statements that have no actual relevance to the article. They're being given undue weight for the size of the quotes. It's just a smoke and mirror show. There are plenty of comic characters given real attention. This is not such a case. TTN (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh I find it disturbing that you are devoted to deleting an article that you got to pick apart the sources one by one. Good gravy! That isn't all the sources anyway. Both either in the article or not in the article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is how discussions work. I think the keep arguments are horribly weak, so of course I’d attempt to tear them apart. Would you like me to go over the other sources? The only reason I didn’t bother is because I’d be repeating myself. Please show me a source you’d consider substantial. TTN (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have proven nothing in my personal opinion. These are pop culture articles that mention her in either great detail or namedrop. You keep using basis that the articles are stupid. Maybe they are! But they are still sources that the article mentioned. Top x characters can still be good articles to use. There is nothing wrong with them. Namedrops are desperate measures I admit but if they provide info that Nightscream just used than I am not complaining. Potential candidates for MCU are list articles that are used constantly and I still feel they help. Do I like all the sources. No! Stupid articles could of been less in-universe if I had my way. But they are what they are. No need to talk trash about articles. It just sounds like you don't want them to exist so the article can be deleted in your favor. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap, basic sources from sites of dubious editorial merit are not good sources. They are not reliable. Sources that do not mention the character in detail are not relevant to the character. There is no “good enough” mentality for sources. They are either good or they are bad. TTN (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are too reliable. They are examples of sources /coverages that can be used. They are in the inclusion criteria. They represent popular culture despite all the stupid in-universe and crystal balling they sometimes do. Even if they didn't prove enough notability now or if it was a stupid topic. Also deletion should not even be a last resort even if the character is not notable when this many sources are utilized and put in the body of the article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a site is putting out two dozen lists per day, that means the quality of such articles is lacking. There is no way to maintain integrity when you have fifteen different authors scrambling to gather content for dozens of pop culture clickbait per week. If a site is simply name dropping a character, that article is irrelevant. This isn't opinion vs opinion. It's fact that these articles are mass produced clickbait. It's fact that a single mention of a character can in no way constitute significant coverage. TTN (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the addition of new sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability as per the guidelines hasn't been established. I rather doubt that those few Keep proponents claiming that new sources have been added to the article actually reviewed those sources, which either only mention the subject fleetingly (and thus cannot count towards supporting notability), or fail to meet the requirements of WP:V for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. Over on the WP:N talk page, where I asked Jhenderson777 which in the blizzard of sources are sources giving the "significant coverage" to the subject required by the GNG, and which of those sources meet the requirements of WP:V as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," he's so far declined to answer save for launching another ad hominem attack such as he's done here. I invite any Keep proponent to answer those questions.
I also hope that the closing admin prioritizes policy over headcount, given that arguments like "Let this page stay" and "Minor character meriting a (minor) article" are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia notability criteria. No objection, of course, to merging to the List of Marvel characters, as above. Ravenswing 21:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am back at editing instead of wasting time discussing the same thing. I did no such "ad hominem attack"s as you claim. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you’re unsure of what "ad hominem" attacks are, but seriously? "I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles." "Sounds like you are being oblivious ..." "Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?" "It apparently must be a nuisance to you though." "I understand if English isn't your main language though." "I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it." "If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays." "Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles." "you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds." "Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted." "You are accusing me of doing that on purpose." "Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..." And so on and so on. (By the bye, for someone who's put in
thirty-two comments to this AfD, you still haven't answered my questions above: which sources, precisely, provide the subject with "significant coverage" as per the GNG, and which sources, precisely, do you claim to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?) Ravenswing 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

These aren’t attacks! Also did you dig up the kind of comments I got that I responded to. No. You are using your own fallacy. An red herring. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles."

That was an opinion. Not an attack.

"Sounds like you are being oblivious ..."

That was no where an insult. I was addressing the editor that I did find sources. Apparently he didn’t see them yet.

"Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway?"

The editor was mocking my stance. Also opinion that he was taking it too seriously.

"It apparently must be a nuisance to you though."

That was unserious comment.

"I understand if English isn't your main language though."

I meant no offense. That should have been obvious. I just didn’t understand what he was saying.

"I knew where your mind was and I knew I would't change it."

Again how is this an attack?

"If you keep commenting on my supposed vote that seem to be keep whining about with guidelines or in a nutshell essays."

He was. It was kind of stressing me out and making me feel uneasy.

"Which is a better thing to do than spend time on a voting system on butchering articles."

Just a non offensive opinion. Sorry if you feel "attack"ed on it.

"you the most uncomfortable admin I ever talked to. Almost to the point of being uncivilized. Have a good day and cool down if you are as heated up as it sounds."

He was making me feel uncomfortable. Where was the lie?

"Stop using fallacy excuses for it to be deleted."

I will probably strike this one. I went too far I admit on this one.

"You are accusing me of doing that on purpose."

He was. Just a fact. Not an attack. Also that was more a question. Despite the lack of a question mark instead of period.

"Apparently to you I must be a dense Senior Editor who shouldn’t have an opinion on reliable significant sources and their proof of general notability guidelines ..."

I was being baited on. So sometimes the best thing is to write unserious comments of what it sounds like is going on.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved, and per potential for further improvement. There are two distinct vectors of potential notability for this character, one being her relationship with Doctor Strange, and the other being her relationship with the Hulk, which crosses certain lines not usually touched in the comics. bd2412 T 01:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is tricky, and I suspect better sources are out there, but until they're found I can't justify keeping this one. Passing mentions and listicles simply cannot provide the info necessary to pass
WP:CRYSTALBALL, and I will not support moving a non-notable article wholesale into a character list by merging. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It's easy to find coverage in works such as the The Supervillain Book and so the topic is notable and should be kept for development per
WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This character has a lot of coverage. As far as I'm concerned it easily passes GNG.
talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Searching around for sources, didn't find anything not already added to the article. Having that many reliable sources talk about the character I believe proves notability. Some of them have more than others written about the character, and no really long articles of coverage, but the total coverage is enough to convince me the article should be kept. Dream Focus 16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Reliably sourced article with enough coverage for a Critical Reception section. Instead of going nuclear, maybe someone could flesh the article out or something? Additional sources also wouldn't hurt, though I would like to see less of Comic Book Resources and Cinema Blend in the article. Dark Knight 2149 11:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a distinction should be made on CBR articles older than 2016 and articles from 2016 and later. The quality of their content dropped drastically after the site was sold. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is the sheer amount of citations that rely on CBR. We haven't gone overboard (yet), but we should definitely avoid them when adding more citations. Dark Knight 2149 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
List of Marvel Comics characters. Include a short summary with citations to the most reliable sources that exist. If better sourcing emerges later, this could be reconsidered. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find coverage. Passes our notability tests. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. SerTanmay (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Moore

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

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

This is an article about a living person, who seems to be notable only for one event, so I an nominating this for deletion per
WP:BLP1E (the 'Subjects notable only for one event' section of the biography of living people policy). She appears to be only notable for the 9/11-related email and has since retrained as a teacher, so it would seem unnecessary to keep an article on her specifically. The details of what happened can be covered in other articles. We do have quite a few articles on British government special advisors, so maybe I am missing some level of notability that this role confers (some have gone on to have political careers). Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

She is notable for only one event, but the event led to an expression which became useful and is still deployed on relevant occasions, viz: "It's a good day to bury bad news." Her infamous email was an early example of cynical media manipulation, and should be preserved for the historical record as an example of how political advisers were already behaving before the dawning of the age of Fake News.

This is an interesting AfD and needs some reflection. After researching this a bit, I'm inclined to think that there are useable sources but they aren't basically about her. They're about news management. At present we do have
Jo Moore should be a redlink; but we've got to preserve attribution until we get there so I wouldn't want to delete it quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to get too off topic, but if anyone participating in this AfD wants to look at other SPAD articles, ones like Lizzie Loudon (who now works for Rory Stewart but you would struggle to learn that from her WP article), that might be useful as well (some SPADs were recently made peers, such as Elizabeth Sanderson, Baroness Sanderson of Welton and Joanna Penn, Baroness Penn, so while controversial in itself, that settles the notability question there). It seems that in general most UK government Special Advisors (recent ones at least) do go on to a career that can be covered by Wikipedia (often as MPs), but some don't. The careers can be a bit up and down until they end up becoming notable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some special advisors go on to become notable. Moore on the other hand engaged in downright unethical activities and was driven from politicis. She was not notable then and is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:BLP1E. Ralbegen (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT and lack of notability. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BLP generally. Redirect as per above is fine, but I'd be cautious, since it's unclear if it quite belongs there. Not opposed to this being included in some sort of public relations/media strategy sort of article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. I believe there is a rough consensus favoring deletion. I also note that WP:PAG based arguments seem strongly weighted towards that end. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Oluwatobiloba Adeyemi

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

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

Article is written as though it were an advertisement for subject and his company. Subject of article doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. References provided are just repetitions of themselves and non discuss subject in detail. Fails
WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ther appears more than enough to meet the GNG here. The uN Idea fair win alone is probably enough for notability. Several of the cited dources are interviews, but contain significant coverage in the editorial voice befoe the start of the Q&A, and there is enough even without any of these. I removed some promotional writing from the article, nd it could use further improvement, but I see no reason to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is no reference provided for subject has in-depth significant coverage in reliable source that establishes notability hence doesn’t scale
WP:GNG The only sources I see mostly discuss his work in passing & not him. @DESiegel: if you do find sources that show notability of the subject do provide it at this AFD. Furthermore the article is written as though it were a resume & advertisement. Celestina007 (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have heard a lot about his works and innovations and i personally is impressed by the devotion of a Nigerian youth towards development irrespective of the risks attached. As @DESiegel: as said, the UN idea fair, Leap Africa Fellowship and Eco-E product are enough for notability. Celestina007 i respect your beautiful and very intelligent opinion but you know, "A man is celebrated because of his works, his works define him". This man was given the this priviledge because of his works which led to numerous interview sessions and as we can see indeptly, the sited interview sources contained straight forward significant coverages of the editorial input even before further questioning of the subject. Promotional writings may not have been intentional but since they all have been removed from the article by DESiegel then i believe we can give this a pass as i see no reason to delete.

Perhaps the writer was overwhelmed by the conduct, works and input to community and national development by a 22 year old who was once considered a failure by his class teacher. Hence, I see no reason to delete. Teebabalola (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough
WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment it should be noted that Teebabalola & Diesigel are yet to produce in this AFD reliable sources that discuss subject of AFD with in-depth and establishes his notability. AFD’s arent about how many keeps or delete votes but substantiating your votes with reliable sources (if you claim he/she is notable enough for inclusion) I am upholding GPL93 view; there isn’t enough
WP:TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TNT. I don't see how anything the subject has done is beyond what thousands of other business people have done as well, every day. It's not entirely clear what product or service he's created to improve other people's lives; marketing doesn't count. Almost every human being has been told by at least one teacher that they'd be a failure -- that's a trope, not a claim to notability. The sourcing is if dubious provenance. It's so poorly written ("his grandpa...", what specifically is he marketing) that an entire re-write will be necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Bearian. I must also point out that none of the awards the subject won are notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in cricket

2004 in cricket (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)

Five Year in cricket articles which are now essentially redundant to the International cricket in season articles, specifically International cricket in 2004–05, International cricket in 2005, International cricket in 2005–06, International cricket in 2006, International cricket in 2006–07, International cricket in 2007, International cricket in 2007–08, International cricket in 2009–10, International cricket in 2010 and International cricket in 2010–11. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:

2005 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 in cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It follows the notability guidelines, much like other [Year] in [Sport] articles. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeepNikita/Archive#19_November_2019 for Caker18. Störm (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This agrees with
MOS:LIST criteria. A number of notable topics are part of this list. This is an effective way to chronicle this information on Wikipedia. It may be difficult to have single articles for each of these items, although there are independent articles linked to these. These are also a good way to aggregate and concentrate this information in one place and under one comprehensive title for each page listed above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on the responses I am withdrawing my ivote. I might Ivote later, after more scrutiny of the articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nominator. These are redundant parts of an incomplete series and I think they breach
WP:IINFO as lists created for the sake of creating lists and then never developed individually or completed as a series. I don't believe they add value and updating them would be a nightmare. The international cricket series is sufficient for listing the events. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all as WP also acts as chronicle, or almanack. So, it is useful to have articles by year as they encompasses whole cricket i.e. domestic, and international. Störm (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Calendar years and domestic seasons do not match up in the southern hemisphere. "Events of calendar year 2004", "Events of the 2004-05 [X country if necessary/wanted] season", and (for example) "Indian cricket in 2004-05", would refer to two different periods of time. If anything, surely the logic should be the other way round? Being an incomplete series does not make something intrinsically useless. Also, "international cricket in 2004" and "domestic cricket in 2004" (not that I would set up an article on the latter without slightly tidier article names) would refer to two completely different things. Bobo . 23:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and
WP:TNT. It's worth noting that these are stand-alone articles, started with good intentions, but then left to decay. 2004 has one reference. 2005 has no references. 2006 has one ref. 2007 has lots of refs (38), but apparently nothing of note happened after 13th June. 2010 has no refs and the page stops at 25th April. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging or merging to either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all. Caker18 succinctly sums up why they should be kept. StickyWicket (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 22:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability guidlines are satisfied. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn under speedy keep criteria 1 (withdrawn by nominator) - based on Enos733's findings, I'll concede that external coverage of the subject exists that I didn't turn up in my BEFORE search, and the other delete voter (Bearcat) consented to closing as keep.
talk) 02:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Frank Baker (politician)

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

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

Non-notable local politician.
talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. To be fair, Boston is a large and important enough city that we would very likely accept substantive and well-sourced articles about its city councillors — but this article literally just states that he exists, without saying anything else about him at all, and single-sources that existence to his
self-published "staff" profile — so if somebody can tackle writing an article that actually features some detail about his political career and some quality reliable sources to support it, then that would be different, but this as written is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Likely keep A quick search does pull some reliable sources of his career, from his proposal to change the length of the council term to his position on safe injection sites, to his position on toy guns. However, like Bearcat mentions, there is a bunch of work that should be done to develop a narrative beyond "they exist." --Enos733 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 02:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I should have added "and I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can tackle fixing this before it gets closed". Aye from me. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will close shortly.
talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Totem Pole Season 1

The Totem Pole Season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a YouTube reality series. Online mentions outside YouTube are to social media sites. Mind matrix 19:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also The Totem Pole Season 2, which has the same issues. Mind matrix 19:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing resembling coverage, let alone significant coverage. hewhoam areismyself 20:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this YouTube season; the fact that it is inspired strengthens my delete choice. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funmi Omoyele

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

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

Article is about a non notable ballon designer. Subject of article doesn’t qualify as per
WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail.
talk) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't fulfill GNG requirements. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails
WP:GNG. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I do not find enough substantive third-party coverage in
WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. He
unreliable and insignificant. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Subject fails
WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zone X

Zone X (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 brand is not notable enough. There are very few (if any) press mentions for it. At best it should be redirected to
Imperial Tobacco. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: or should it be redirected to Skruf Snus that manufactures it? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is entirely generic product. No standalone notability, so no need for redirect. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins F.C. (Port Harcourt) 2008/09 season

Dolphins F.C. (Port Harcourt) 2008/09 season (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)

Pretty useless and technically fails
WP:NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the article below because it also lacks notability and has nothing substantial or worth improving:

2014 FC Erchim season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know how this has slipped through the cracks as a page on the wiki. So good find by the nominator with finding these pages. In terms of notability, this does fail
WP:NFOOTY as the nominator pointed out so. HawkAussie (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and
WP:NFOOTY relates to biographies only, not season articles, so it cannot fail it... Giant Snowman 18:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NFOOTY NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As mentioned above, NFOOTY relates to players and managers, so it is impossible for an article on a season to fail it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Thanks for pointing that out NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Critic's The Wall

Nostalgia Critic's The Wall (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)

Funny article, and yes the video is terrible... however. There is nothing here that shows this is actually notable. No reliable sources are used in the article. IMDB, Amazon, RateYourMusic. And a search shows that none of them exist. There is also already a paragraph at Nostalgia Critic that covers everything here without the cruft, although it doesn't use any reliable sources either. So this can probably be deleted. --Quiz shows 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As bad as it may be, it's surely not notable enough to have it's own standalone article. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the low rating on Rate Your Music and a negative review by Anthony Fantano have contributed to the notoriety of both the video and its associated album, barely any other reliable sources exist for the project to warrant its own article, not helped by the fact that most of the negative reactions are coming from Internet users rather than any actual critics. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Jar Ltd

Candy Jar Ltd (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 page was created, and has mainly been edited,
Orphan. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They
New York Attorney General to justify deductions. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We are not the yellow pages delete as
WP:PROMOTIONAL. Wm335td (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Kadian (1998)

Vicky Kadian (1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria of
WP:NACTOR, having only a couple of filmed roles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky (actor). ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with
WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. There also was a merge suggestion but if no sources exist for the to-be-merged content that makes the objections grounded in WP:Verifiability a weighty counterargument. If folks find sources later they can add new content to the Orangeville, Ontario article at their leisure, subject to discussion on its talk page and all applicable policies and guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Orangeville, Ontario

List of mayors of Orangeville, Ontario (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)

List of mayors of a small town, not
WP:CANTALK with the name of a person who served as mayor for one of those six years, we still can't locate any sources that verify anything about the other five years.
In other words, this is an inadequately sourced and incomplete list of almost entirely non-notable people -- and I can't think of any compelling reason why keeping a list of mostly non-notable smalltown mayors would be critically important enough to override all the other problems with this. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note
WP:BEFORE should be done to verify these mayors' existences, especially in places like ProQuest and Newspapers.com. ミラ P 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Both of those have already been checked, and most of the mayors remain unverifiable because neither of those databases contain any newspapers where regular coverage of municipal politics in Orangeville would be expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to verrify the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Orangeville, Ontario or Delete per nom ~~with the caveat that this wikitable can be undeleted if desired to merge into Orangeville, Ontario.~~ Doug Mehus T·C 00:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the problem with these sorts of delete !votes is that Bearcat has already summarised everything I'd like to say. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Yeah, that was my first preference, but it seemed unlikely given the supporting rationale Bearcat presented. So, I copied the list and pasted it on Talk:Orangeville, Ontario for future merging if this closes as delete (provided someone can source the information). Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per previous arguments. Another non-notable listcruft fork from a notable topic. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG and the list substantively fails WP:V. The page is 95% unsourced which effectively precludes a merge. Article title is not a realistic search term so a redirect is not a reasonable alternative. Sadly that leaves us with one choice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, I disagree that the fact that it is currently unsource precludes a merge. A merge could still take place and, if it doesn't happen within a reasonable period of time (say 2-3 months), then it would be renominated for deletion with prejudice. Doug Mehus T·C 06:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't keep unsourced material on the basis of "maybe we will find sources one day." And we don't add unsourced material to articles. That's a fairly carved in stone no no. WP:V is policy and there is no three month waiting period. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NorthEast United FC#Supporters. Consensus is clearly against keeping and appears to be roughly in favor of redirecting. Per ATD and CHEAP this appears the best course. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander Brigade

Highlander Brigade (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 group of supporters. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice of another better article being created. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NorthEast United FC#Supporters where it's already mentioned and referenced. No need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page
Highlander Brigade, as substantial source and reference material has been provided. Bin 20:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Diverse views, but the Keeps are not quoting the specific refs they are relying on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ on the basis of the below references.^{Highlander Brigade are the supporters'group of NorthEast United FC. Bin 04:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]}

A number of changes has been made in the
Highlander Brigade page and I hope those are sufficient to keep the page away from deletion. Further references to justify the cause are given below.^[3]^[4] Bin 08:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

^ "Highlander Brigade members with NorthEast United owners". NorthEast United. Retrieved 9 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade on Fisto Sports article". Fisto Sports. Retrieved 9 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade host different off season events|". Northeast Now. Retrieved 10 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade host football competition|". Highlander Brigade. Retrieved 10 Nov 2019.

Keep The article has been entirely rewritten , referenced, and significantly expanded since User:discospinster nominated it, User:SportingFlyer voted to delete and User:GiantSnowman voted to redirect. Two of the references do show notability. one and two. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced. Four sources - one from the group itself, one from the club, and two from questionable local sources, none of which show significant coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 19:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how they'd be described as local. One covers the entire Northeast India, which is eight different states, and a population of over 40 million people! That's not local. And the other is national - in a nation of over 1.3 billion people; these aren't village papers or websites here. I'm surprised these sources are all in English though - User:BinBoro, are there no sources in other languages? The language itself doesn't matter for Wikipedia, it's more about the quality and how in-depth the source is. Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four sources link to bloody Instagram, and Fisto appears to cover anyone who wants to cover them, meaning there's no editorial oversight. The NE News Now article is about a FIFA video game event the supporter group held, so
WP:GNG there is very... arguable. We're not there yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Still, with the improvements, User:SportingFlyer, how is this a delete, and not at least a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was the first !voter here, I don't really care if it's redirected if there's a proper target, it's even nearing the
WP:GNG line but I don't think it has crossed it yet. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair enough, User:SportingFlyer. I'm just a bit surprised that User:Fenix down relisted and noted that consensus is leaning towards delete, when you are the only one of five to comment who endorsed deletion. Nfitz (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm new to the process of AFD, I would like to understand what are we trying to establish here. Is it Highlander Brigade is genuine? If it is the question then Highlander Brigade is a genuine and notable group. The group has 9.2+ follows on Facebook[10], 5.6k+ on Instagram[11] and some 1.1k+ on [12]. The regular viewers of the Indian Super League will know Highlander Brigade is mentioned and talked about in every NorthEast United pre-match discussion on the Star network. But for the given references, one is directly from the club itself, two is given to show or prove the claims in three and four is an article from Fisto Sports, a national sports news website and I don't believe they cover everyone for the sake of it.Bin(talk) 02:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
general notability guideline. It's not enough that sources exist, it's not enough that we can verify something exists, we need multiple sources which show secondary, independent, reliable groups have adequately covered the topic. Fisto Sports FAQ says they'll write an article on pretty much anything, see here, so we can't use them as a reliable source. The article also needs a rewrite as much of the prose isn't encyclopaedic - it feels like what the group would write about itself and isn't adequately sourced. I'd be fine draftifying this until more sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I see how Fisto is a problem. The Northeast one is good though. I'm surprised there isn't any coverage in Assamese. Significant media coverage is what we are looking for. 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I understand @
Highlander Brigade towards the club NorthEast United FC. The sources are given here.^[1]^[2]Further Highlander Brigade is mentioned in a tweet from the Indian Super League^[3], the league in which NorthEast United play and by NorthEast United in a YouTube video^[4].There are not many Assamese news papers online, most of them still have paper newspapers.Bin(talk) 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

^ "Highlander Brigade writes open letter to NorthEast United". Khelnow. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade miffed with NeUFC management". The News Mill. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade mentioned by Indian Super League on Twitter". Indian Super League. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade mentioned by NorthEast United on YouTube". NorthEast United FC. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

A few articles by leading newspapers about
Highlander Brigade: 1.Deccan Chronicle mentions Highlander Brigade in an article^[1]. 2. The Assam Tribune writes about Highlander Brigade hosted soccer meet.^[2]. 3. Dailyhunt mentions Highlander Brigade alongside Blue Pilgrims in an article^[3]Bin(talk) 04:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

^ "Let's Football". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

^ "Highlander Brigade soccer meet". The Assam Tribune. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

^ "Indian football legend Dr Talimeren Ao's family thanks Blue Pilgrims for their heartfelt homage". Dailyhunt. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

Redirect per GiantSnowman. Current sourcing certainly does not indicate subject meeting
WP:GNG: two of them are just instagram posts, and one is about the group supporting a FIFA video game event. The Fisto article is interesting but similar coverage from more reliable sources would help establish the subject as notable independent of the club. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Jay eyem: Please look into the following references by Deccan Chronicle: one, The Assam Tribune: two and Dailyhunt: three (BinBoro (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I am not seeing these sources fulfilling the need for
significant coverage. The first source does not address the group in detail. The second source is sending me to a video of a protest, so I'm not sure if that's what was intended but I have my doubts that would constitute significant coverage. The third source is a passing mention of the group in the context of the larger article. I am also unsure about the reliability of these sources. Jay eyem (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some indication of GNG has been presented. I'm not convinced and would close as delete for now if I had to close right now. However, the debate still seems to be ongoing so no rush.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NorthEast United FC#Supporters where it's already mentioned and referenced. per Giantsnowman. Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Watkins Jr

Eddie Watkins 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)

Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a background musican on various recordings does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is the subject merely a session musician? Bearian (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
(non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

'The Night Mail'

'The Night Mail' (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)

It's just a poem; not an encyclopedia article. CoconutOctopus talk 14:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Night Mail as the poem was written for that film, and is mentioned in the lead.----Pontificalibus 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rocky 734 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pontificalibus. Mccapra (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as non-notable poem that is relevant to the film it was written for. No particular information needs to be preserved since the article already gives some mentions of it. All sources I can find are blogs or lyrics sites, or they only give a short mention of the poem. (If they copy-paste the poem but don't elaborate on it beyond a single sentence, it still fails
WP:SIGCOV.) UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Night Mail. No need to prolong this AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Burleson

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

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

Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails general notability guidelines.Rocky 734 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:PROMO as reads like an advert which isn't surprising considering it is mainly a copy of his spotify page but as this article is quite old its hard to judge which came first, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - hasn't toured nationally. The only evidence of "touring" is in one area of Texas. No major record label. If anyone can find another way to prove
WP:MUSICBIO, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Reads like a promotional piece and provides no sourced content to indicate that
WP:MUSICBIO is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cassette tape#Flaws. czar 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bandsalat

Bandsalat (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)

Wikipedia is not a German to English dictionary which is what this article is. The term "Bandsalat" is not in ordinary usage in the English language so this article is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. The only substantive content relating to untangling the "tangle" with a pencil eraser and the associated image could be moved into the cassette tape article if some editor felt it was not undue. Tom94022 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
tape salad should have the same redirect target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect I more or less agree with the above. Expand Cassette_tape#Flaws to better describe "tape salad" with an image. Redirect "tape salad" there but Bandsalat need not be mentioned nor redirected. Tom94022 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally started this article because I heard the term used in a podcast and when I went to go look it up the only definition I could find was the German article. It's apparently been in use in the industry for a while. The_stuart (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any usage at all in the English speaking industry. Tom94022 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect:
WP:NOTDIC, non-notable term, or redirect per Mark. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested - seems to pop up just about sufficiently to expect that someone might actually look for the term [13]. And create
tape salad as an equivalent redirect while we're at it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirects are cheap and there seems to be just enough to suggest this is a plausible search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earther

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Earther

Articles for deletion/Earther (2nd nomination)

Earther (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)

First off, i'm going to find myself a
talk) 20:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep There is evidence of notability. It is covered by notable media outlets such as Fast Company and the Columbia Journalism Review. The lorax (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. There's RS coverage in at least three sources (Fast Company, Columbia Journalism Review, and SAPO), and The Smithsonian Magazine covers stories Earther reports on, as seen here and here. --Kbabej (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have updated my !vote with strikethrough. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apologies everyone on duplicate websites notification above, i have added this afd to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found by Kbabej prove notability. Dream Focus 16:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dostluk

E-Dostluk (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 general notability check.—
talk ~ contribs) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources with sigcov. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Visit

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

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

Fails
WP:NOT#PLOT, and doesn't establish WP:Notability; a plot summary is already present in List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. I originally added a {{notability}} flag in 2008, which got removed in 2012 for no apparent reason. (This AfD is a test case for all the other episodes for this series.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - As much as it pains me to vote delete on this, no, this is basically
WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I don't see a wikia dedicated to this show, so I am not sure if there is any other website that hosts a better plot summary for this episode (Series). But
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep this... maybe transwiki to Wikibooks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- in regards to future AFDs, I'd be wary of lumping every episode together. Certain things (for example, the special between the two series, would probably receive enough individual media coverage for being out of the ordinary. Individual episodes might also receive differential levels of coverage.
matt91486 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If there is AfD concensus that (most of) the articles shouldn't exist, then I'll probably just redirect the other episode articles to the LoE, citing this AfD and its rationale. If someone wants to revive the articles by solving the AfD concerns, fine, but nothing has been improved for 11 years, so... *shrugs* – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without sources, there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These expanded Plot-articles for Yes Minister should probably be merged into the main article as shorter plots (eg less than 10 lines per norm); would be a shame to lose this material until such a merger was completed? Also, probably shouldn’t delete individual articles until a group-solution has been decided. Britishfinance (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Britishfinance. 4meter4 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sgeureka could re-nom the series (who are all in the same shape), and propose they be merged into the main Yes Minister article that should be re-done as a proper "Series" article with 10-line plot summaries for each episode, E.g. like this Chernobyl (miniseries)? There is too much plot here, but many Yes Minister enthusiasts (myself included), like to have a way to remind themselves of what happened in each one? Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with redirecting all of them to the LoE, and interested editors can salvage what they want from the ep article history. However, I do not support leaving the articles up for longer - eleven years have been long enough. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
WP:NOT#PLOT applies. Second choice redirect to the main article or an article about the seasons, if existent. What we should not do is leave them under a merge tag for another decade doing nothing. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to the list of episodes page. There's no good reason to delete content where there's a valid merge target as an
alternative to deletion. There's no real, pressing issue that militates towards getting rid of this content now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definately not Delete given the content here. These are useful material for creating shorter plots as part of a larger topic article. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what
WP:UNDUE don't need more than one or two summary sentences extra, which you won't find in the ep articles. A plot reminder from e.g. IMDb can help here as well, so it's not like deletion would hurt. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are just one line summaries - way too short. We want the main article to look like this: Chernobyl (miniseries). This content of this article (and all others in the series) should be written down into a 10-line summary per Chernobyl; otherwise, I would not delete the article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion, specifically FOARP. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least find a way to keep the plot summary, it would be a shame for so much hardwork to be wasted and the pages are useful. As long as the serise as a whole is notable then keeping each episode page like many other shows have.Zubin12 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly respect that an editor put work into this article, but that is not really a good reason to keep something. The final part falls under
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some shows have episodes that received enough coverage for individual articles, while others do not have this. Such comparisons are not particularly useful for this particular discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. Unfortunately, and as noted above, there are already short summaries of the episodes in the main article/list. Large scale merging seems likely to bloat the target article. However this is a viable search term and would make a good redirect. That would also satisfy some of the concerns of various editors with respect to preserving the material in the editing history of the redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This isn't the most enthusiastic consensus, but it is there. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Mann

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

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

There are a couple decent sources, but overall it is not enough to establish GNG.
talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - the several sources, the prize, and solo exhibits in major art scenes allows her to
meet the technical factors for creative persons. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It meets minimum main notability guidelines, as for minimum main general notability one needs to be a award winner we cannot neglect it. Rocky 734 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had never heard of the "Kingston Prize" before this. Upon looking it up, it turns out it is a private prize founded by two private individuals. These days it is easy to do this and say you are "Canada's premier prize for portraiture". That said, it has garnered some coverage and seems reliable. However I see this as pretty much the artist's only claim to fame.
talk) 16:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being an "award winner" doesn't automatically make someone notable. It comes down to the prize itself and in this case it doesn't count for that much. That said, CBC, Design Art Magazine, Artoronto, Vice, several things at Juxtapoz, Create Magazine, Hi-Fructose, nss magazine... there seems to be some halfway decent coverage. Some of these I'm including without entirely knowing they're reliable, though. I also acknowledge that several of these are interviews, which don't help the article that much but do contribute to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nana shogi

Nana shogi (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, and the other two pages in the nomination, is a micro-sized shogi variant that I doubt is notable. I can find only the creator's website and BoardGameGeek, plus a handful of vaguely promotional sites, as sources. I considered merging into Shogi variant but IMO the games are already covered in enough depth there and the content of the articles is poorly sourced descriptions of the rules.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Bushi shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gufuu shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reyk _YO! 12:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fancruft. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Istehaar

Istehaar (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 unreferenced article is on am Indian term which appears to be just another word for classifieds and is a
WP:DICDEF. A search for sources does not turn up any coverage. Whpq (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not dictionary.--Krishna's flute (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced dicdef. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hammerax

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hammerax

Articles for deletion/Hammerax (2nd nomination)

Hammerax (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 know this article recently survived AfD (nominated for being too promotional) but there were only 3 !voters who responded and said that being overly promotional was a job for cleanup. I'm nominating it again for a lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are 6 refs in the article, 2 of which are from the website, 2 are sales pitches for their cymbals, one is a blog and one is a mention-in-passing. My
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:PRODUCT Music Gear review prodcut Mentioned in Drum Magazine Drum Product Review Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging the previous participants and XfD closer. @Fma12: @Rocktober2018: @Dom Kaos: @Tone:

Keep No reason for a do-over. Reasons cited in last nomination are sufficient.
WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article needs some edition, not to be deleted.- Fma12 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not surprising, the always !vote to Keep editors from the Rescue Squad continue to !vote as a group without even trying to address the concerns expressed in the nomination. I'm scratching my head over how
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is a business that makes products.

The rest of your post is mere Argumentum ad hominen. I will not dignify it further. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Links to references to establish notability please.
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notability marginally established by [14] and [15] and taken over the top by recent keep result. Because of the uncivil environment, I will not be watchlisting this page and will not be responding to any comments about my !vote here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for providing links. The topic is the company not any of their products so what we require is
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muller & Phipps

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 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) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' -
run of the mill courier that is probably one of hundreds in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vardø Framtid

Vardø Framtid (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 newspaper is defunct, and not relevant, searching for it yields no results and cites only a single source. Submitting for Wikipedia:Notability Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded the article with relevant material from Norwegian WP. Doremo (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and
WP:ATD, particularly given this one's founder. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is a nice short article, with sources that I can't read but look to me to be sufficient. And it's about a newspaper, for which in general it is often difficult to find coverage about them from other publications, as is covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, an essay about notability of newspapers which User:Peteforsyth recently notified me about. In general we need for Wikipedia to cover newspapers; i think we should be a gazetteer about them, because we need ourselves to know about their qualities as sources. Here, it is useful to have this article to inform any perspective about usage of this newspaper as a source, anywhere else. ("Oh, okay, that was a short-lived commie rag, perhaps a good source about X but not likely to be objective about Y"). And again it is a good, interesting short article ( i like it). --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Doremo's expansion and do not in any way merge, the #Press section would be severely bloated. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Anna Subramanium

Sri Anna Subramanium (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 indication of notability. Orphan article. The only cited sources are a souvenir and an apparently self-published book written by his great-granddaughter. —Bkell (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should really conduct a
WP:BEFORE in the relevant languages. I get hits on Google, but I don't know the language so can't assess the reliability and independence of sources. The Tamil-language Wikipedia article is useless because it's a translation of this page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A claim that there are sources but none have been provided at this AfD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the longname given at ta-wiki does not appear at all at books.google.com and the shortname brings up too many other people; the sources that are provided are unreliable; and the article in its current state is a hagiography. It looks like some of his books have been used as references by others, and given his output it might be possible to establish his notability under
reliable and independent Tamil language sources, so draftify/userfy for heavy editing if request is made accompanied by suitable evidence. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: There are no reliable and independent sources. 124Sanroque (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona

Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona (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, apparently defunct mobile home park, sourced from a directory which appears to have a much less stringent criteria than we do for populated places (otherwise 250+ mobile home parks in Arizona would be presumptively notable), fails
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any indication of population, or how "defunct" it is? We have a vanishingly low notability standard for geographical places, especially if (or if ever) populated. It would be strange to keep all the undeletable Indian villages, and the British crossroads "notable because it has a telephone box", yet delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a bit of original research at historicaerials.com shows no indication of any mobile home park at the point where OSM says it is. The only results are from sites using the same database to populate their data. It's not impossible the mobile home complex was in a different place, but that doesn't inspire confidence. This is a bad stub created from an unreliable database. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's failing WP:V rather than WP:N? I could go with that too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per
WP:GEOLAND. Not defunct, still a neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Neighborhood Scout, has a pretty extensive report on the location, using data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the U.S. Geological Service. Since it has "an official federally recognized name", as per the USGS, it passes GEOLAND's populated, legally recognized places criteria. It also comes up in other geo database searches (although with very little info, simply proof of existence), such as Michelin. Okay, I think I found the issue, when looking for other sources, I discovered the DEC and DMS coordinates in USGS don't match: when using DMS, it gives a location further west, near Apache Junction, while when using DEC the location is more east, in Mesa. SportingFlyer's source absolutely shows nothing there, when using DMS, but when using DEC, it brings up the correct location, supported by those other database sources, as well as Neighborhood Scout. I've changed the coords to DEC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The autogenerated Neighborhood Scout data is not for this supposed neighborhood, it's for Census Tract 422628! Compare with https://statisticalatlas.com/tract/Arizona/Maricopa-County/422628/Overview#nav-map/place. Geoland explicitly excludes census tracts, and NS creates these using census data for every one of the 74,100 tracts in the country. This is NOT notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another non-notable "neighborhood". Being listed in the GNIS database does not confer "legal recognition", therefore fails
WP:GEOLAND as having insufficient coverage as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments," etc. MB 16:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Zero indication of notability. The GNIS is NOT "legal recognition", it is simply a database of anything that has appeared on a map. The GNIS citation is just the Yellow Pages! The Michelin site merely uses the GNIS database and is not indication that any person has acknowledged it, just that the coordinates are imported. Neighborhood Scout's data is NOT for this supposed neighborhood, it's autogenerated for Census Tract 422628, which is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. NS produces these reports for all of the 74,134 census tracts in the country like this other one nearby. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a precedent (see
WP:GNG or is a census-designated place). This one doesn't seem to be an exception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep as per
~~WP:GEOLAND. We have a low bar for these populated places. Onel5969 does some good work here. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply
]

We have a low bar for populated places with legal recognition. "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." This subdivision isn't legally recognised, and
WP:GNG isn't met here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment as per the USGS, it passes
WP:GEOLAND
's populated, legally recognized places criteria.

Desert Village Mobile Home Park (GNIS FID: 36966) is a populated place located in Maricopa County at latitude 33.413 and longitude -111.623. The elevation of Desert Village Mobile Home Park is 1,542 feet. Desert Village Mobile Home Park appears on the Apache Junction U.S. Geological Survey Map. Maricopa County is in the Mountain Time Zone (UTC -7 hours).
Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per the USGS, it is not a federally recognised place. A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. Therefore it has to pass
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nothing about "Federal" in GEOLAND #1 Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Now I leave this AfD about a mobile home park to do other work. My !vote is citing policy and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS is a federal/national database, the census is performed federally in the US, and if the federal government didn't recognise it but the state did I would agree with you, but there's absolutely no evidence of that. SportingFlyer T·C 02:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here you can find the USGS Topo maps for this location – the 1956 map notes about 30 Trailer Parks. An advanced search in GNIS, a database of everything that has ever appeared on the topo maps, for the "Apache Junction" quad brings up no fewer than 60 mobile home parks, all listing "Yellow Pages" or "Citation Unknown" as the source. The idea that the drafters of GEOLAND intended its definition of "populated, legally recognized places" to be identical to that of the GNIS, to mean Yellow Pages entries of subdivisions and neighborhoods rather than actual cities, towns, and villages in which they are located, is simply absurd. This notion willfully disregards the explicit specification of "subdivisions...unofficial neighborhoods" in the following line, which a mobile home park clearly is, and it willfully disregards our expectation that when something is "presumed to be notable", further sources could be found. This is not the case. Reywas92^Talk 08:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Reywas92: Per Geoland #1 I have strong disagreement with your statement ...when something is "presumed to be notable", further sources could be found because that is not the high bar which is required to meet GEOLAND #1. However you make some very reasoned arguments here regarding the legal status of this area and the opinion that this area must meet the higher bar of GEOLAND #2. Your research has shown that this area does not fit under criteria #1: additionally I was unable to locate the Desert Village Mobile Home Park, in the 2000 census. So this is then a neighborhood/subdivision/housing development and the area must meet the higher bar set in GEOLAND #2. …subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And because no sources exist to pass GNG required by GEOLAND #2, this article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Request move to draftspace if/when someone plans to actually work on the article. czar 23:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Nesmith

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

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

This is a college basketball player, thus fails
WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non notable minor athlete. Geoffroi 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be a case of
WP:GNG. We should check in on him in a couple of months, though, because if he’s still averaging 26+ points per game for an SEC team in January I can pretty much guarantee the press coverage will catch up with him. Rikster2 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a clear case of too soon. He has not risen to the very low level of notability for basketball players and no reason to rush the article. It is bad enough the largest birth year category in Wikipedia is for those born in 1989, we do not need to rush to try to change it to 1999.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm struggling to find in-depth coverage even from Nashville media and even despite his start he hasn't really shown up on any draft boards either. Just a case of
WP:TOOSOON for now. Maybe draftify and save the content? Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify This is a case of TOOSOON by perhaps a few months. I think the content should be saved but the article is probably not notable currently. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Störm (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely rewrote much of the article and added sources I have access to. In addition, there are several sources I don't have access to. The abstracts indicate that they would add to AUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed, Ovey N. “Book Reviews.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31, no. 3/4 (Summer/Fall94 1994): 398. [16] "Reviews the book `The Separated Ones: Jesus, the Pharisees, and Islam,' by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood."

Arthur, Chris. 1993. “Words of Wisdom.” TES: Times Educational Supplement, no. 4041 (December): IV. [17] "Reviews the books `Discovering Sacred Texts Series,' edited by W. Owen Cole, `The Torah,' by Douglas Charing, `The Christian Bible,' by W. Owen Cole and `The Qur'an,' by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood."

Arthur, Chris. 1996. “Faith in Our Time.” TES: Times Educational Supplement, no. 4155 (February): VI. [18] "Reviews the books `Examining Religions series Judaism,' by Arye Forta, `Christianity,' by Joe Jenkins, `Islam,' by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood and `Roman Catholic Christianity,' by Clare Richards."

Kimball, Charles A. 1994. “Shorter Reviews and Notices.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 48 (1): 106. [19] "Reviews the book `The Separated Ones: Jesus, the Pharisees, and Islam,' by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood."

Keep I have also added some sources and information to the article. The subject meets
WP:NAUTHOR, with "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There was also a BBC1 Faces of Islam program about her in December 2000. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. More of a borderline/technical pass of NAUTHOR, and although not a guarantee of notability, the quality and depth of the RS have been materially improved from a
WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl; clearly the subject's written works are of note in her specific field, and thus she is notable. Britishfinance (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
2019 Syrian-Turkish clashes to be a redirect to Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). ST47 (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

2019 Syrian-Turkish clashes

2019 Syrian-Turkish clashes (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)

Small clash as part of larger
WP:CONTENTFORK of Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). Suggest Delete/Merge KasimMejia (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge into Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019) as a content fork. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I had some difficulty at discerning the meaning of Musicwikiwriter's post, but it doesn't seem like it has convinced anyone to keep this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.Nichole

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

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

Does not meet
notability guideline right now. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Analysis of sources:
Mkito: Not
independent
. Online music store.

MusicBrainz: Not
user-generated content
.

64hiphop (archived): Not reliable.
Self-published blog
with no named authors or staff.

AllMusic (
Indiscriminate. AllMusic
entries with no staff reviews do not count toward notability.

AllMusic: See #4.

Digital Radio Tracker: Not reliable. Does not meet the
record chart guideline
.

AllMusic: See #4.

Central Track: Not
significant
. Passing mention of C.Nichole in one sentence.

LatestMusic (archived): Not reliable. Self-published blog with no named authors or staff.

AllMusic: See #4.

IMDb (RSP entry): Not reliable. Mostly user-generated.

Austin Indie Fest: Not significant and/or independent. The page doesn't mention C.Nichole or her company, Water With a Lemon Productions.

Pan African Think Tank: Not independent. Organization founded by C.Nichole.

Inspire School Programs: Not significant and/or independent. The page doesn't mention C.Nichole.

A search revealed no additional sources that would count toward the subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: 1. Mkito: Not independent. Online music store. - makes sense, sentence linking to it can be removed 2. MusicBrainz: Not reliable. Mostly consists of user-generated content. - makes sense, sentence linking to it can be removed 3. 64hiphop (archived): Not reliable. Self-published blog with no named authors or staff. - author listed if you click on "64hiphop staff" then look in the URL and you'll see "evanoskillz" 4. AllMusic (RSP entry): Indiscriminate. AllMusic entries with no staff reviews do not count toward notability. - but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) stated "Resources: Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the AllMusic search engine" 6. Digital Radio Tracker: Not reliable. Does not meet the record chart guideline. - Wikipedia has yet to account for digital streaming via online radio, if that's the route an artist took/takes, how can that be measured 8. Central Track: Not significant. Passing mention of C.Nichole in one sentence. - article mentioned the artist but user stated "not significant" via opinion. 9. LatestMusic (archived): Not reliable. Self-published blog with no named authors or staff. - author listed if you scroll down it says "meet the author" 11. IMDb (RSP entry): Not reliable. Mostly user-generated. - makes sense, sentence linking to it can be removed 12. Austin Indie Fest: Not significant and/or independent. The page doesn't mention C.Nichole or her company, Water With a Lemon Productions. - the link can after mention of her show "The Intro". If you scroll down to "1:30 PM" you'll see that's the time the show "The Intro" was screened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(films) "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" user stated "not significant" via opinion. 13. Pan African Think Tank: Not independent. Organization founded by C.Nichole. - makes sense, sentence linking to it can be removed 14. Inspire School Programs: Not significant and/or independent. The page doesn't mention C.Nichole. - what makes a non-profit significant?, scroll down to "Radiant Girl Luncheon 2017". I had to do some digging for this one but I cross referenced the photos on the site, to this photo on her social media page "https://www.instagram.com/p/BUze750DJkZ/" and found out that her first name is spelled wrong and I'm not sure if that last name is right either because it mentions it no where else that I've found.
I'll try to check you reply when I can but I'm sure my response won't be as in depth as this one. Thank you for what you do! Musicwikiwriter (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion focuses on whether C.Nichole is eligible to have a Wikipedia article (
directory of alternative outlets. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails
WP:SINGER Ceethekreator (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis of the sources. The lack of significant third-party coverage suggests that
WP:MUSICBIO is not met. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Let me know if you'd like the page moved to a personal page for further editing but note that the article shouldn't be restored to mainspace based on the available sourcing. czar 23:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riding with Sunshine

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

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

I don't think this has enough citations to reliable sources to meet
WP:GNG
.
My Evaluation of the sources:

Neighborhood journalism that reads like an ad.

A real review in a possibly reliable but not well-known source

Not coverage of the subject

An announcement of a screening

A review in a source that advertises itself saying [We] will rate and promote your Indies film. Official Selections of Film Festivals and Award winners will have priority on being reviewed, the trailers shown and their film introduced to a worldwide public. [22]

Brief coverage in a film shorts roundup on a blog

A seemingly non-notable award from a pay-to-play [23] review website

All told, we have one example of decent coverage in a reliable source, but an obscure one that doesn't leave me hopeful that other sources will have picked up on this subject, and no claim to meeting
WP:NFILM. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has won some minor awards, but nothing close to passing
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – does not pass
talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

""Keep"" - It has an reliable source. Maybe the writer of the article was new or didn't know how to source properly. I worked on a couple of links and will look up more sources to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icethistle00 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue working on the article, but the sources added as of this comment don't comprise significant coverage and the festival awards don't seem notable enough to push it over the edge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. I noticed she won an award from the Irish Echo. I thought that was pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icethistle00 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage to satisfy
sandbox) if the author requests it, to continue development in case there are more we're not seeing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep two articles, no consensus on the others. This is a complex discussion, to the point that some people have suggested that it should be closed as
WP:SIGCOV
criteria about primaryness and mentioning-in-passing and about whether the quality of the forked text actually justifies having them as separate articles. Also, a number of arguments are vague or not based in policy and guideline ("fancruft" is not a deletion guideline and "it's useful" or "other series have such lists as well" is not normally a sufficient reason to keep). Overall, it seems like the lists might benefit of dedicated discussion.
PS: I've replaced the asterisks in the list of nominated pages with colons as XFDCloser otherwise does not recognize them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Races and creatures in His Dark Materials

Races and creatures in His Dark Materials (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)

Fancruft. These are all fictional elements from the
MOS:REALWORLD quite hard. Sandstein 07:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also nominated:

Locations in His Dark Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials#Settings. Goustien (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dust (His Dark Materials) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials. Goustien (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dæmon (His Dark Materials) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials#Dæmons. Goustien (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have enough (or any) interest in the topic to do the
Iridescent 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (all) Just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series
you don't like doesn't make it so. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

And just asserting that dislike is the reason for this nomination is not a reason to keep these articles. You do not address the actual reasons for deletion, namely, a lack of sufficient third-party sourcing, and an in-universe focus so severe a total rewrite would be needed. Sandstein 12:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Iridescent noted already, we're awash with serious study of Pullman. Already he's seen as being on a par for these works with Tolkien and CS Lewis. To dismiss this as mere "fancruft" shows that not only are you unaware of what is out there, you're also just being patronising for the hell of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am intentionally patronising, but about the crufty content, not about the subject. I am aware that Pullman and his works are well covered. This does not mean that these particular subtopics are as well. At least judging by the articles, they are not. And it's up to those who want to keep them to establish the contrary. If there are enough academic studies of Pullman's Dust that we can write an article based on them, I'm all for somebody doing that. But this is just plot summary. Entirely worthless stuff, something for fan wikis. Sandstein 13:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"At least judging by the articles, they are not. "

I can only hope you're not serious in that statement. Otherwise your understanding of WP:N is not at a level where you should be nominating anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What
Iridescent 16:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — Even if these are not notable, the pages should have been nominated separately. 165.91.13.178 (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While some of these topics very likely aren't notable, bundling them all together like this was not really the best way to have done this. The topics are disparate enough that this could easily result in a
WP:TRAINWRECK. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all Daemon and Dust are notable on their own terms. Significant coverage of Daemon in RS includes [24] [25] [26]. Significant coverage of Dust in RS includes [27] [28] [29] [30]. These are just 3 unique examples for each topic (some of which also cover the other in significant detail) from just one database (JSTOR). I am confident if I searched other literary sources (e.g. Project Muse) more sourcing for these two topics could be found. As for Locations and Races/creatures even if not independently notable (and they might be I just haven't searched because of what I am about to write) I would suggest that they are policy compliant forks and not just fancraft. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning toward keep give the above discussion, specifically Barkeep49, but I agree with Rorshacma that it would have been best to nominate these articles individually rather than bundle them together as one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all For dust I found https://screenrant.com/his-dark-materials-mythology-daemons-dust-explained/ for the races I found https://nerdist.com/article/his-dark-materials-hbo-clans-institutions/ for the locations I found https://londonist.com/london/film/bbc-his-dark-materials and for the daemons this appears https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-11-11/his-dark-materials-daemon/ so keep them all. Google news search didn't take long to look over the results for each thing and then click something that seemed like significant coverage in a reliable sources. Dream Focus 02:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dæmon (His Dark Materials) and add citations from appropriate sources; otherwise, reduce to what is justifiable and merge that to His_Dark_Materials#Dæmons, keeping a redirect. This combined discussion probably warrants a swift close, following which perhaps some of the pages might be re-nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Barkeep49 has offered WP:RS and I echo the feelings of Andy D that this is not my area of interest so I am not the editor to fix it. The fact that all of the articles are bundled is also a reason I err on the side of Keep. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Dæmon (His Dark Materials) and Dust (His Dark Materials (I abstain on those). I'd have to look into Dæmon one a bit more, but the ~~three~~two others are pure fancruft and I don't see good sources (non-PRIMARY) that discuss them outside mentions in passing. Sadly, quality of arguments in discussions target by the rescue squadron and friends is rather problematic, and it's good to have an experienced admin look into this mess (see other entries in the fiction deletion sortlist, please). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I am curious what shortcomings you see in the sources I noted above for Dust. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I believe that the editor who brings a source fourth should explain why the coverage in them is significant. You made an assertion that those sources discuss the topic in-depth, bit have not provided any analysis or quotations. I could just as well assert that those sources do not contain any in-depth discussion of the topic, just mentions in passing. Can you prove me wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well one of the articles is 22 pages entitled "Dialectical "Complexifications": The Centrality of Mary Malone, Dust, and the Mulefa in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials" so I'd have hoped that the GNG connection there would be obvious. But fair enough - besides that source see pages 422-3 for a discussion of how it relates to concepts in Milton and 431 for an endorsement of a blog post (which might fail selfcite) that discusses it further in [31]. See pages 273-74 for a comparison to concepts in Plato in [32], and as a central plot concept on page 72 of [33] but then goes on to note several other academic and formal writings including this on page 78. Most of these are too extensive to be quoted, hence the way that they satisfy GNG, and is why I had not done so in my original !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Names can be misleading. I've seen articles or chapters that mention topic x in the name (or abstract) and never again. I cannot access the first article (my uni doesn't subscribe to JSTOR, and it's not even in Library Genesis). Without reading it I cannot assume that it discusses the subject, and with all due respect, neither should you (it is a good source to bring forth here, but an editor needs to provide an analysis before it is more than a 'google hit'). As for other sources, I am willing to AGF them and deter to your analysis that the concept of Dust is discussed in them in more than just passing, so I'll adjust my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYWALL When someone puts up a solid 23 page academic paper about the topic, you can't simply reply, "I can't be bothered finding access to a service which exists to give free academic access to sources and is widely used, for free, by WP editors, so I'm just going to assume, against other editors, that it has nothing to do with the topic." That's some of our basic sourcing policy. Pullman is still relatively recent, compared to Tolkien or Carroll. Academic studies are out there, but they're not yet sitting for free on the shelves of every public library (although there's yet another route to free Jstor access). But that's no reason to claim that they can't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, apart from speculative content about purpose, meaning etc, the lists nominated do not need refs since the source is the book itself, to the same extent that a plot summary would be. I did a massive clean-up of 'fancrufty' material some years ago - it's possible/probable that some was missed. I believe both 'dust' and 'daemons' may still have WP:OR and may not be notable, but no source is required for purely factual material about creatures and/or locations since the source is the trilogy itself. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to His Dark Materials. Goustien (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all given the existence of similar pages for the Harry Potter series, e.g. Magical creatures, Magical objects. gbrading (ταlκ) 11:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. The informational content is fine, but the independent (literary arts analysis) sources aren't about the objects in the stories so much as the meaning of the stories themselves, and as such shouldn't be used to support separate articles about those elements. Furthermore, the sources put forth in this AfD discussion are not yet cited in the articles themselves, and aren't likely to be for the preceding reasons, so GNG isn't likely to be attained with them. EllenCT (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sources aren't about the objects in the stories" Whilst that might be true for the more minor aspects, such as "Jordan College" or "Gyptians", that's certainly not the case for Dust or Daemons, the two major philosophical strands in Pullman's work. Those are exactly the things which are being written about in such depth.

Secondly, the idea that "sources at an AfD do not convey WP:N until such time as they're incoporated into the article text" is completely wrong, per our basic policies on GNG etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (all). Merging is problematical. The pieces are already quite long (although some are barely sourced for now) But just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series is another form of
you don't like. Ipse dixit doesn't apply here. I endorse the reasoning of Andy Dingley
, and will not further burden the discussion by repeating it again.

WP:Before
should focus us on what the artciles may become, not what they are.

I see that this
WP:Trainwreck earlier predicted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I would also note
WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all to a new article I think a His Dark Materials universe page would make more sense than these disjointed concepts, after they are heavily pruned to remove any unreferenced material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I don't want to dig too deep in this set of topics as I'm watching the new adaptation and so am wary of spoilers. But it's clear that there is extensive scholarship and sources for this material and so the claim that it fails
WP:PRESERVE
. Deletion would be disruptive and so is not appropriate.

Another point. The readership of these pages is high as viewers of the new adaptation come to Wikipedia to understand its mysterious aspects like dust and the dæmons. So, there are thousands of readers every day but where are they in this discussion? All I'm seeing here are the usual suspects – fanatical insiders and veterans – and this demonstrates the extent to which AfD doesn't represent a true consensus of Wikipedia's users. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but most everyone is being shut out by a Magisterial process that gives them no voice. Tsk.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two lists at least. I won't bother to comment on the other two right now. The arguments that those are proper splits are ridiculous.
WP:NOTPLOT is completely against that kind of content. These are lists of minutia that help nobody understand the context. Summary style content is king in fiction, and some people think that's impossible. Guess what? If the page is too long, then we simply don't need to cover the material unless backed by non-primary sources. I have never seen anyone actually argue why lists like these are necessary beyond pointless arguments like page views. Guess what? If you look at a specialized Wikia's views, they'll far surpass any page on Wikipedia. It's pointless to draw away views from useful information for this bare bones useless junk. Then there's the usual "there's sources because this is a popular series" arguments. The pages should not have been brought into existence without sources. If sources are actually abundant, we can try to imagine the articles' optimal states, but the promise of possible sources is just an excuse to let these linger. TTN (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the lists (or renominate) I came here from a link at DRV. don't have much of an opinion on the other articles but sources at least appear to exist and I'm going to assume they're fine, but nobody has discussed sourcing for the Races and Creatures or Locations articles, which are incredibly poorly sourced on
MOS:REALWORLD and listcruft guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While I would have to be convinced of the value of standalone articles on most fictional elements, I just do not see a problem with non-fancrufty articles on major features and lists of more minor features from major works like these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to usefulness of the material. There's no real reason/argument for deleting it. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen IV

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Van Halen IV

Articles for deletion/Van Halen IV (2nd nomination)

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

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

Fails
WP:NALBUM, on account of the album not actually existing and the title simply being a placeholder rather than a confirmed name. A few demos were recorded, and that was it, basically. I understand why the article creator wanted to make something of these recordings, and they absolutely should be mentioned somewhere in the band's history, but there is so little verifiable information (mostly divulged by then-singer Gary Cherone during this interview with Rolling Stone [34] and in another one with Ultimate Classic Rock [35]) that it would only take two or three lines and would be better to just include it in Van Halen#1996–1999: Gary Cherone era, where it is already mentioned. Seeing as the album was never given an official title, I don't see how a redirect would be useful here: readers could just as well be looking for "1999 Van Halen demos" or "second Van Halen album with Gary Cherone". Richard3120 (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's statements. A redirect would not be useful in this situation as this is not even a confirmed title for the album/collection of songs. Aoba47 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is correct. Even if sessions got far enough along to indicate that a new album was coming, the project ended before anything was confirmed, including the title. In short, the album does not exist, and the doomed sessions can be (and are) mentioned in the band's biography. Also note that the Album Navigator fields for the albums that Van Halen really did release in 1998 and 2004 are pointing to this article, and will have to be fixed if/when this one is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic
WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. It appears that the nominator and author have reached some level of understanding of how to list tour performances by this artist. CHICHI7YT, if the content of this article would be helpful to you, please feel free to contact me and I will provide it to you. ST47 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santana 2007 performances

Santana 2007 performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NOTDIR tour date listings. This article does have a couple of reliable sources in it, but they are literally "Santana played at the event" passing mentions... some of these appearances were as part of an event line-up, not headlining concerts. There is no in-depth, independent reliable coverage of any of Santana's shows included in this article, and to describe it as a "tour" would be OR. A redirect to Santana (band) doesn't seem possible, given the non-notability of Santana's participation in most of these events and the fact they are not mentioned in the band's article, and the vague OR title of this article meaning it's not a likely search term. Richard3120 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement. I agree that most of the articles I've created most likely deserve deletion since those tours aren't very notable and the articles do not give good coverage of them nor cite reliable sources. I was considering making an article for tours and performance lists like this one, e.g.
talk) 23:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That's not a bad idea, actually. I left your other articles alone because at least with tours, there's a good chance that reviews or descriptions of the shows do exist in print magazines of the time, so there is the possibility that they could be improved. The problem with this article is that because it's not a tour, it's a random collection of unrelated shows, in some of which Santana only shares the billing with other artists, it's very unlikely that there's ever going to be any in-depth coverage of Santana's part in these shows. But a list article might solve that issue because all you would need is a reliable source that shows that the performance took place, and it would probably be more beneficial to the type of information you are trying to convey. I don't deal with list articles much myself, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide whether
WP:LISTCRITERIA could be met here. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 03:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial

Partial (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)

All the entries on this disambiguation page are
WP:Partial title matches (none are known solely as "Partial") and the existence of this page impedes the Search function for other matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after trimming/adjusting. It seems that at least 3 of the entries can reasonably either be titled partial or refer to a topic in an article which is referred to simply as a "partial": Partial derivative (when spoken, it is often simply referred to as "the partial of $f$ with respect to $x$ ", for example); "Part score", which is piped to Glossary of contract bridge terms § partial links to a glossary as a short term for "partial score"; and "Partial wave", although that's piped to Harmonic series § partial. I didn't check all the others, but there might be a few more as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as of now, only one of those cases (partial score) has a mention in the appropriate article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even given the above cleanup and keep comment, this still doesn't satisfy
talk) 17:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a followup note that as of the comments of Nov 19, this is still a very strong delete based in
talk) 16:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Kingofaces43. This is just an adjective. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: This is objectively false. See for example wikt:partial#English, which lists no less than five separate definitions for "partial" as a noun. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And they are all just adjectives being used as jargon - a partial fingerprint, a partial derivative, a partial denture, etc. Agricolae (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect this may not have clearly expressed my position. What I am saying is that these 'noun usages' are used between two people inside a jargon- or context-bubble, with the shared understanding that when talking about foo, a 'partial' is a partial foo, but are not used where one would expect a naive listener outside the bubble to know which foo partial is referring to. When talking to such naifs, the speaker would use the term in full with partial as an adjective. That is why I think 'noun usages' are jargonistic and not general usage. I don't think it is useful to detail all of the different settings in which a partial foo might just be referred to as a 'partial'. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is practically the definition of what we shouldn't be making an article for under that guideline.
talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Question. Remind me, why is "partial x" not okay but "x partial" is? Hyacinth (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note.
WP:PARTIAL does not mention jargon. Presumably it should mention what it disallows. Hyacinth (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

More like the other way around. No guideline is going to list every thing it disallows, otherwise it'd just be wikilawyering. Jargon is already considered unecyclopedic across the project, so there's no need to mention it in every single guideline.
talk) 13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Deacon Vorbis. It's a reasonable and viable DAB.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After cleanup, the list includes multiple items which could be referred to as "partial" or "a partial" with no further signifier, which is the reason we have DAB's. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006. Since the consensus is not to keep this as an article, but there was know further input to clarify the details, I'm going with the only specific suggestion from the limited discussion. RL0919 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Bill of 2005

Telecommunications Bill of 2005 (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 bill did not make its way through congress, and all sources seem to point to either old sources or to other Wikipedia articles. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT OR DELETE. Title of article needs changing OR needs to be redirected. "Telecommunications Bill" is not how congressional bills are named/titled. The phrase "the telecommunications bill of 2005" would likely be a common non-proper noun referral phrase to the real bill, which already has an article: Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006. I would either redirect this article to THAT page or take it down, that's my opinion. --Francisco Fredeye (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per
WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not to keep, and most likely to redirect, but to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not clear if consensus is to redirect or delete (or delete and redirect).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Honor (brand). BD2412's suggestion to merge appears to be a reasonable outcome. There is very little content in the current version of this article - really just an infobox - so I intend to immediately redirect this article to Honor (brand), but preserve the history so that the technical details in the infobox can be transferred to the redirect target if appropriate. ST47 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honor View 10

Honor View 10 (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)

Wikipedia is not a product directory. One of the many same articles created by the same user. VivekY1 Graywalls (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Honor (brand). Not independently notable, but worth a mention there (which is all that this article amounts to). BD2412 T 02:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Babylon 5 characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number One (Babylon 5)

Number One (Babylon 5) (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 that fails
WP:NFICTION. Deproded by User:Andrew Davidson with unhelpful technical summary. Andrew, can you tell us why you think this topic deserves its own article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - A minor character and an article almost entirely dedicated to in-universe summary. The two references are to a website which does not appear to be a reliable source (and would appear to give more notability to the actor than the character in any case). I don't think a redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters would be helpful either, since I can't see anyone searching for it with the brackets (and we can hardly point Number One there!). WJ94 (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a selective merge, per Sgeureka. Some of the entries at List of Babylon 5 characters are pretty long and I don't think we need that much detail. WJ94 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of many non-notable articles in this space. TTN (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:SUMMARY. This recurring character should be covered somewhere. There is even some real-world info ("Getting the role" section), but it's not expansive enough to justify a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters per sgeureka. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Unfortunately, discussion seems to have died off over a week ago. WJ94 seems to have successfully identified a few sources and has changed opinions from delete to keep, and I see that they have added those sources to the article. That leaves this debate pretty close to even, so the best result is no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination if the delete !voters believe that a consensus can be reached with a second attempt. ST47 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adamson Institute of Business Administration and Technology

Adamson Institute of Business Administration and Technology (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)

Private institute, fails
WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see
WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Whether Pakistani, American, British, or even Nauruan, an educational institution has to have evidence of at least existing before any other notability criteria are considered. This is greatly in doubt her, since the institution's website is 404 and the Pakistani NIC says the domain registration expired in 2015. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - After finding nothing through Google/Google News/Google Scholar, I did finally come across this – the Adamson Institute of Business Administration and Technology is listed as an affiliated private college of the
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online; this institution does not meet that criterion since it is not independently accredited. Given the lack of any further sources which would establish notability, I think we can delete. WJ94 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect/selective merge to the University of Karachi. Not independently notable, but a sentence or two at the University of Karachi page would be fine.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once again I see above a lack of understanding of how tertiary institutions work in India and Pakistan. Most colleges are affiliated to a university. This does not mean they are part of the university or that they are not independent institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: It turns out I linked to the wrong page yesterday (apologies for that – I had about 20 similar-looking tabs open trying to understand this!). My first link should have been this, and my second link should have been this. The second link notes that The Degree is awarded by the University of Karachi. This to me suggests that the Adamson Institute is not an independently accredited institution (I am not saying that it is a part of the university but I am saying that it does not have the ability to confer degrees by itself, independently of the university). If this were a similar institution in the US, UK, etc (ie. an institution which had its degrees conferred by another university), I would !vote delete if multiple reliable sources could not be found for it.

@4meter4: Since this institute is not part of the university, I am not sure a redirect would be useful, nor am I convinced that the University of Karachi's page needs a list of all the colleges affiliated with it (since it does seem to be a pretty routine arrangement in Pakistan). Having said that, I don't have strong feelings here, so I wouldn't be utterly opposed to a redirect. WJ94 (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said that about any of the
CNAA. But nobody would have said with a straight face that they weren't notable institutions. One size fits all does not work internationally. All countries work differently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SYSTEMIC leads me towards wanting to keep this article. As a tertiary education institution affiliated to the University of Karachi, I expect an editor in Pakistan would be able to locate enough offline sources to establish notability. I have added the sources I have found to the article and tagged it as containing only primary sources. WJ94 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability is definitely not limited to notability achieved within the subject's lifetime, and the discussion indicates that
WP:BIO1E does not apply to this case. RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gerry Dalton

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gerry Dalton

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

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

Doesn’t meet
WP:GNG in my opinion. Majority of the articles about him were after his death, the wiki article is only once sentence long, stating his nationality and his profession. After a thorough search for any other pre-death articles about him, I feel he does not meet guidelines to have an article. Rusted AutoParts 03:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A decent article could be written with the given sources. History is full of people who only achieved posthumous fame. Curiocurio (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the person. I don’t feel Dalton is one of them. Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Posthumous fame is still fame, as Vincent van Gogh, Emily Dickinson, Franz Kafka, etc. can attest to. I may get around to expanding the article later. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect of articles after death seems to be the thing being focused on. Those three examples aren’t fair because they all have had immense significance in their lives. Did Dalton? Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't have "immense significance" during their lives, and it's not our responsibility to judge the merits of his art; various experts feel his works are worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Picking apart my wording doesn't discount the point. There's no fair measure in regards to Dalton, and the three you have brought up. His work hasn't had an international reverence, and the garden's only seen media coverage now that they're posthumously trying to save it. This still has no barrings on Dalton's notability. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards recreation should coverage continue. Seems like
talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Easily meets the GNG rule. The fact that he only came to wider notice after his death is irrelevant. He has had in-depth coverage for a body of work created over decades during his lifetime. It isn't just the garden, his whole home is full of art. It's in the nature of outsider artists that they are suddenly discovered, often too late. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think that might be a rather novel interpretation of GNG. For example, if someone made terrible art over their lifetime, and made one good thing at the very end of their life that was posthumously recognized in four articles, they would qualify under what you are saying. So we would have people who made one good thing (BIO1E) getting articles. I don't think that is the intention of the GNG. as
talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't matter whether the art is good or not. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, my point only illustrated that the coverage is what counts, and the coverage here is BIO1E. Single event with short-term coverage. Short term coverage of a life's work is not the same as long-term coverage of a life's work.
talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

You have misunderstood BIO1E. The event referred to there is the subject of the article, not the coverage of it which may occur over time or all at once. This is not a single event because his life was not a single event. It was a decades long event and the bunching of the coverage in a short period after his discovery is not relevant as the coverage discusses his life and work as a whole. See this source for instance: Campaign to save deceased Irish artist’s life’s work which says "his project remained a secret for thirty years". Note the phrase "life's work". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting the basics of our notability rules. He got zero coverage during his lifetime. He got brief posthumous coverage. The mistake in your argument is that you are saying brief coverage is OK, as long as the coverage is about something you have been doing a long time. You've been flower arranging at home your whole life, and got three articles in the newspaper in October? Welcome to Wikipedia! That is incorrect and subverts the intention of the notability guidelines. In any case, I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
talk) 13:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agree "History is full of people who only achieved posthumous fame.". There are a number of notable people that note him too, including mayor of London and the chief executive of the Royal Academy of Arts. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being heralded by famous people doesn’t necessarily equate to the person themselves being notable. Philippe's is a famous LA restaurant, yet the founder Philippe Mathieu doesn’t have his own article. Rusted AutoParts 07:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Swiss

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

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

Fails
WP:ENT: The references are a database entry and two industry award listings, and the awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful. Cheers, gnu 57 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT as the nominator states. Independent searches for independent RS coverage yield nothing significant. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi Note Prime

Redmi Note Prime (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-remarkable product. wikipedia is not a phonearena mirror Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes the general notability guideline. Some of sources: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. --
✉) 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- I also think this article passes the notability guidelines, as
Xiaomi Redmi Note 3. -- Telescopegenius (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila Party

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

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

Fails
WP:NOTABILITY. Only minimal, obscure references to the Tequlia Party by reputable sources from several years ago. No references to it from any discernible sources in the last few years. Ergo Sum 01:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 01:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] and a few more. As Ergo Sum said, most sources are from several years ago (from 2010 and 2011). Maybe it can pass the basic notability guideline, I'm not sure. --
✉) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per
WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep has enough coverage in reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As others have said, notability is not temporary. Wikipedia can contain information from the past, even if it is less relevant today. Acamicamacaraca (I hope I spelled it right) has already pointed out enough sources to satisfy
WP:GNG. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dallas (1978 TV series). Under the assumption that people wanted to link to Dallas (1978 TV series) rather than Dallas which is about the city. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Wentworth

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Katherine Wentworth

Articles for deletion/Katherine Wentworth (2nd nomination)

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

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

Another very poorly sourced minor character from Dallas. There's blogs and fan sites on the internet, but nothing of substance. She is mentioned, nothing more, in here, and next to nothing here--and that's the best I can find. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
✉) 16:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Dallas. Tag on it since 2013. Very minor character. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have a look at "background" section of the article. It drops a lot of wiki links to people related or associated with her.
WP:INVALIDBIO. If the decision is to redirect, I think the title should be changed to "Katherine Wentworth (minor character)" or something. Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I closed this under my main account, however upon further investigation it looks like this was a copy from the main article and not copied from an external link as I'd thought. I'm going to try to help the student improve this and then move it back live. Meatsgains, if you still think it's going to have issues with notability then I have no problem with re-adding the AfD tags and it going through a formal discussion. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Danger of a Single Story

The Danger of a Single Story (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 (a TED talk) is unencyclopedic. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_16&oldid=1142613224"

[1] "Highlander Brigade members with NorthEast United owners". NorthEast United. Retrieved 9 Nov 2019.

[2] "Highlander Brigade on Fisto Sports article". Fisto Sports. Retrieved 9 Nov 2019.

[3] "Highlander Brigade host different off season events|". Northeast Now. Retrieved 10 Nov 2019.

[4] "Highlander Brigade host football competition|". Highlander Brigade. Retrieved 10 Nov 2019.

[5] "Highlander Brigade writes open letter to NorthEast United". Khelnow. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[6] "Highlander Brigade miffed with NeUFC management". The News Mill. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[7] "Highlander Brigade mentioned by Indian Super League on Twitter". Indian Super League. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[8] "Highlander Brigade mentioned by NorthEast United on YouTube". NorthEast United FC. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[9] "Let's Football". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[10] "Highlander Brigade soccer meet". The Assam Tribune. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

[11] "Indian football legend Dr Talimeren Ao's family thanks Blue Pilgrims for their heartfelt homage". Dailyhunt. Retrieved 13 Nov 2019.

NorthEast United FC

Bin

reply

[1]

[2]

[3]