Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Keating

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

No significant coverage in indepenent sources. I can't see what the claim to notability is here. The subject is a violinst with the pit orchestra in Sydney, and has various other enterprises of no special importance. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are interviews, but I'm unsure if that's enough for
WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teete Owusu-Nortey

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

Nothing in-depth. Effectively as single ref for a position at work, re: press releasea. No effective sources. Fails

WP:BIO. Some minor routine coverage.scope_creep^Talk 23:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
to be bold. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nulla poena sine culpa

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

WP is not a dictionary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the phrase nulla poena sine culpa, but rather about the legal principle that the phrase represents as well as this principle's recognition in the laws of various countries, its consequences, etc. Mgkrupa (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (forgot to write it). BTW I'm the creator of this article. Mgkrupa (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, all reasons for keeping the related article on Nulla poena sine lege apply to keeping this article. Mgkrupa (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a dictionary definition, the concept is discussed in detail in scholarly sources [1] – Thjarkur (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced article about a fundamental legal principle. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
WP:GNG, the 1st page of a gsearch for "Nulla poena sine culpa" brings up "The Nulla Poena Sine Culpa Principle in European Courts Case Law", "Nulla Poena Sine Lege in Continental Criminal Law: Historical and Theoretical Analysis", "Nullum crimen sine lege", "Nulla Poena Sine Lege", "The nulla poena sine culpa principle in European courts case Law: The perspective of the italian criminal law", reflecting the notability of this central legal principle. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plague (comics)

)

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

Notability isn't established. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either Horsemen of Apocalypse or Morlocks. BOZ (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only keep vote has no rationale. Fails
WP:GNG and has no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual trivia. Fails GNG.Kacper IV (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both the original nomination and the second page that was added halfway through. Normally I would balk at including a midstream addition without at least a relist. However, in this case the creator has been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, so that doesn't seem necessary. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (astrology) eminent personalities

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

This is trivia at best and unencyclopedic. It is what I would expect to find on a spammy astrology site and not an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LISTN. It's not a notable list topic and doesn't present meaningful or useful information for readers. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. One twelfth of all "eminent personalities" (whatever that means) is too indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely
WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per
WP:IINFO. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

DeleteTrivial to put it mildly. I have a poor record when it comes to bundling articles for deletion, so I'm leaving it to someone else to do the honours, but see Leo (astrology) eminent personalities ; same applies. This appears (at present0 to be the only other article of this sort by this editor.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Cancer (astrology)-eminent personalities was created this morning. Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- sigh - do you think we can just consider this a consensus for that? There is literally no difference Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we can, that would save us 11 more AFDs, as I presume they intend to complete the set. Schazjmd (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Schazjmd I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we can because it's all the same subject and same content, the only difference is the title so it'd be like debating whether people with the number 2 in their phone number being deleted at AFD would be any different than people with the number 9. No substantial changes. I left the creator a note...Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - What a waste of time! No limbs involved, clearly if the list for one house deserves deletion, they all do.TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the Moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will guide the planets and delete will vote the ... um ... editars. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Lights

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

It's wonderful that a family is into its holiday decorations, but I don't see the sources to support a claim of notability in the article or in a Google search. Nor does the details of how the lights and displays are controlled account for notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every city has homes that are locally "famous" for their holiday light displays. The xLights Around the World and Christmas Light Finder refs are sites where users submit themselves, no notability achieved there. The blog lists the house along with 55 others, no notability. I can't find any signicant coverage to justify an article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Christmas lights).---Pontificalibus 21:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and it comes quite close to speedy deletion consideration as promotional. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7566:BF2D:6652:8697 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reread it. Almost none of the article is sourced, and it's an advert. Please speedy delete this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7566:BF2D:6652:8697 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is, sadly, a puff piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Promoting a local business per
WP:PROMOTION. This is something we do not want to include in an encyclopedia. Tinton5 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per
significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. Fails GNG.
HighKing⁺⁺

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 Warhammer 40,000#Setting. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psyker

)

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

Relatively minor part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. No secondary sources cited, and a search throws up no major coverage. The article has been tagged as relying solely on primary sources since 2012; as needing further citations since 2009; and for being wholly in-universe since 2014. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Setting While this is a major concept in Warhammer 40,000, it has not been discussed by professional journalists or academics. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, slight possibility of this being a searchable term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Usual crufty trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Small chance of this being a searchable term.Kacper IV (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Warhammer)

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

Trolls are included in all kinds of fantasy worlds; no reason is given to think that Warhammer trolls are particularly notable - they don't even have their own army list. No sources, secondary or primary, are cited in this article, and it has add {{unreferenced}} at its head for almost a decade. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Non notable article. Nothing came up when I tried searching for it.Bluedude588 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary spinout not independently notable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just can't seem to pass
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Seems like a spin out
WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual-variety gamecruft trivia. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual crufty trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Salt (disambiguation). Merge at your discretion. Moving the title to fix typo now. czar 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salts (disambigution)

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

There is already a disambiguation page at Salt (disambiguation). Interstellarity (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salt (disambiguation), this one isn't necessary. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – as above, a second dab isn't necessary, but one could conceivably search for various uses of the plural or a disambiguation page for such entries. Before redirecting, I also strongly advise a move without leaving a redirect to Salts (disambiguation) (then redirecting from that title); the current title is spelled incorrectly and would not make a very useful redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect, as above. No need for a separate dab page for plurals of slang terms etc. Inspired by this have added Salts Mill to Salt (disambiguation). PamD 12:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's perhaps another discussion to be had on "What is the Primary Topic, if any, for
Salts?" Currently redirects to Salt (chemistry). Should it? PamD 13:04, 30 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 per

(non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

North American Man/Boy Love Association

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

Promotes an illegal act.. Violates WP:TOS, and yes, I'll say it, it's disgusting as hell. Delete and salt! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets
Wikipedia is not censored. It's true that this organization has passed out of the headlines - and mostly out of existence - in recent decades, but notability is not temporary and this group is notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per MelanieN. Having an article about an organization is not advocacy. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason we have articles on other awful things like the National Policy Institute, a white-supremacist promotion organization - it's notable, and by clearly and encyclopedically explaining how awful they are, we do the world a service. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I knew someone would post WP:IDDON'TLIKE IT, are you also going to address the fact the Nambla promotes illegal activity which is banned by TOS. It's not about Notcensored when it comes to TOS Necromonger...We keep what we kill 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think deleting an article about a notable, evil, awful organization is going to accomplish. Do we delete our articles on the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, too? These are evil, awful organizations that are nevertheless notable and frankly historically important. By clearly and encyclopedically laying out for all time what these organizations are, what they stood for, and ultimately how they have been defeated, we do the world a service. It's a cliché, sure, but that whole thing about those who forget (or erase) their history are doomed to repeat it. Good, decent, right-thinking people want these histories remembered, because that's how we ensure nothing like it ever happens again. No one who has visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum will ever forget it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 29 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. czar 18:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glaurung

)

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

Minor dragon in the Silmarillion. Minor in-universe significance, I can't find any real-world significance (LOTR fan sites don't count). Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#G. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend, I have to respectfully disagree with you here, too. There's nothing besides "Glaurung" at that list to redirect to, so it wouldn't really be useful since it wouldn't redirect to content. Hog Farm (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief description there would be in order, not just for that entry, but for all of them, so maybe I should have lvoted merge and redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Clarityfiend and J Milburn, List of Middle-earth characters is simply a list of articles about characters. Creating an entry for each on that page would transform that page. Do we want to do that? Do we need that? Do we need that page at all?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Upland I'd be open to working on that page. But I don't think a description of more than a couple sentences would be warranted for each person. And I'd probably remove the random minor characters nobody remembers from the Silmarillion from the list. Does that sound reasonable? I think the list could serve a good purpose if it gets reworked (especially once the "scouring of the Wikipedia" has been completed). Hog Farm (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the place to discuss that. But I think it's problematic to suggest a redirect to a page that doesn't exist.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glaurung is only briefly mentioned in a handful of academic and journalistic publications. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable enough character to merit a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Usual-variety Tolkien trivia. Fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uinen

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

Minor character in the Silmarillion. Only source is to said work, Google scholar knows her not, only Google sources available LOTR fan sites, which are inherently not RS. Hog Farm (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~or redirect to List of Middle-earth characters#U~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend, I respectfully disagree with you that that list is a good redirect target. The only content in that list about the topic is "Uinen", so it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. Hog Farm (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too minor a character for redirection. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Clarityfiend - but I think you got your letters wrong! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete not an important character in any of Tolkien's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety Tolkien trivia. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Amass

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

No indication that this album satisfies

WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in sources - there is a bare discogs profile confirming that it exists, but I could find no significant coverage in independent sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails
WP:NALBUM — KylieTastic (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above, fails
WP:NALBUM Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 20:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- fails
WP:NALBUM. Andrew Base (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete the existence can be verified, but the subject still fails
WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - probably an attempt at promotion, as the album has received no notice from reliable sources. Only the usual streaming/retail/social media links can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Patch (Band)

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

No indication that this band passes

WP:INTERVIEW) is a dead link. I can't find any independent sourcing about them online (although I came across some different bands and albums called Purple Patch, so be careful when searching). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete can't find anything to show passes
WP:GNG — KylieTastic (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete the existence can be verified, but the subject still fails
WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Please help me with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Patch_(Band) - this band is surely notable band: see this is a media coverage http://theindianmusicdiaries.com/its-not-just-about-music-rock-n-roll-is-much-more-than-that-in-conversation-with-purple-patch/ — Preceding

talk • contribs

)

Delete - Searching is tough because their name seems to be used for various landmarks, businesses, and pop culture stuff in their country. But even with some precision searches I can find nothing reliable on this band beyond the site copied by the last commenter, from a publication called the Indian Music Diaries. Even that is a relatively short interview. Charitably, we can say it's
too soon for this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamka Tocinovski

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

No reliable sources can be found. Interstellarity (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some mentions in reliable sources for Kamka Tocinovski on hollywoodreporter.com, for example. - Виолетова (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions does not add up to notability. No evidence she has had mutliple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They just are mentions. Nothing in-depth, secondary and intellectually independent. No coverage whatsoever. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is part of the Berlinale Talents, which means that she was selected by the Berlin International Film Festival as one of the 250 most promising film and drama creatives in the world that year. It is true that mentions in the international English-language press are scarce, however there are numerous, significant reliable sources in Macedonian (just run a search with "Камка Тоциновски"), and she's definitely notable in her home country. I don't know if this means that she meets the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia, but we also should be mindful of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - she's an actress with a few roles and some coverage, but
far from significant. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beings (film)

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

Direct to video film, does not meet either

WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, it's not required for a movie to be widely-released or released in theaters to have a stand-alone article here. Second, I added sources that prove that the article was reviewed by independent sources.--
talk) 03:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - it's
consensus that terrible films (it got a 33 % on Rotten Tomatoes) can be notable. On the other hand, it didn't get a lot of reviews. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, I normally create articles about "terrible" films (or less known films) and I rarely have issues. Normally, if a film was reviewed by media outlets it's considered "notable" even when (like in this specific case) the film is just awful.--
talk) 02:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Cast is notable enough for retention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one review by a reliable source (not Tofu Nerdpunk). It just wasn't good or bad enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad films are notable too. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Default keep, a merge or redirect are possible. Tone 17:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Psychology

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

Was recently prodded after having been an uncited stub for years. De-prodded, with a couple of sources added which show the existence of the book. However, a

WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to
talk) 16:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC); amended 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I don't normally venture into these discussions so forgive me if I say something stupid. A google scholar search for '"Quantum Psychology" wilson' gives 191 results. The amount of academic work which references makes it notable enough in my eyes. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a

talk) 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have restored

talk) 21:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Support merge. Even if notable, notable in this context. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a major book by a major counterculture author, mentioned in Wilson's The Guardian obituary and, as cited by Pelirojopajaro above, whose comment amounts to a Keep, is well represented in Google scholar. Wilson is recognized as one of the main authors of the American and world counterculture, comparable to Timothy Leary, and all of his works are thus stand-alone notable. Quantum Psychology is also notable for being the introductory volume about the subject, and is notable as one of the few book written totally in E-Prime. Too much going for this one to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Anton Wilson. Passing mentions in both obituaries and no reviews show that NBOOK is not satisfied, but redirects are cheap. I'm not finding any use of the term with respect to quantum mysticism. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to
ping}}) czar 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable book Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development Communication and Policy Sciences

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

Yet another somewhat incomprehensible essay, likely a class project, with an assortment of original research and likely copyright violations. A good portion has no proper sourcing at all. Home Lander (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If this article is a cut and paste from another site, this warrants speedy deletion.TH1980 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if there's anything that isn't copyvio. IMO it's not worth exploring, it'll take too much time for low probable reward. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development communication policy science

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

Reads like a long, somewhat incomprehensible essay. Possibly a class project, with plenty of original research, and likely unsalvageable as is. Home Lander (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who created this article posted this edit summary: ‘I created and defined the term develpment communication policy science.’ Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps we should have an article on the concept. But the current article is unsalvageable, not least because the history suggests there could very well be uncaught copyvios. I'm fairly sure this is a class project, I have reason to think it's probably coming from the University of Philippines Open University. And some of the earlier edits are by editors called DCOMM330 or something 330 which may refer to this [2] "COMM 330 (Communication Policy and Planning)". Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Roode and Chad Gable

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

No reliable sources can be found. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one ref. No others could be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets
WP:PWTAG. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I agree with ImmortalWizard that the tag team seems to be relatively well known and stable. I guess the two even won a championship together.^{[3][4][5][6][7]} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, the article is just starting, so it's hard to see if it's notable or not due to the lack of sources and text. But, Gable and Roode were a team just for 8 months. During that period, won the title just for 60 days. Most of the sources I found are WP:ROUTINE, nothing focused on their work as tag team. I think the team is no notable and the info can be included in their individual articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that the wikiproject created their own notability guidelines for tag teams but if this meets those guidelines then it is back to the drawing board.
WP:GNG take precedence and this isn't notable. Coverage should be more detailed than routine match results.LM2000 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fail even the loses reading of
WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 00:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ntsele

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Interstellarity (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources available, although scant and little more than appearance in king lists. Some of the print source histories listed in the Hlubi people#Further_reading may contain more? (Interstellarity, it may also have benefited from maintenance tags and Talk page discussion to see whether a distinct article can be sustained, rather than bringing this straight to AfD 4 hours after its creation?) AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD, I was told not to AfD articles from NPP if it was created less than 3 hours ago. Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was going to vote to Redirect back to
WP:DONOTBITE. I recall having a stub that I had created and had under construction deleted by an over-officious admin, so that I had to start my article again. I was advised to tag such stubs as Underconstruction to avoid that happening. That was in the days of dial-up connections to the Internet. Having said that my potential target is a list, which could usefully be fleshed out with dates and other material, including a preamble describing of where their kingdom was. This all depends on how much is known about the various kings. If we know little but their names, that may be the best course of action. I do not favour having articles that will never be expanded beyond a stub, because literally nothing is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is going to take us down the rabbit hole, not only of Zulu vis a vis other black South African lineages, but may get us into the mess that this person pre-dates Shaka, and thus the Mfecane's reordering of the ethnic balances in what is today South Africa. Despite various attempts to read both the history of South Africa, and various works specifically on Shaka and his leagacy, I have never found enough to really feel expert in it. On the other hand the premature nominations of this article reminds me of the fate of the bios of Bruce C. Hafen and Alexander Schreiner, two people who when shortly after the articles were created I felt to say "I have not yet begun to cite." I also have a feel our article on Hlubi people is very inferior to what it could be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable enough for an article here. Sourcing for XHosa kings is not going to be as easy as sourcing for modern entertainers an so forth, but what we have is enough.-- Deep fried okra 12:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. While not all of the older kings and chiefs can be attested to, this mid-18th Century leader is
reasonably well-attested. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A king. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard (comics)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Strikeforce: Morituri. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:GNG, no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual crufty trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver Man

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless better sources can be identified. I am not opposed to a redirect (or a merge if anyone feels there's content worth keeping). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. typical fancruft trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Anne Summers

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to
Corsair (comics). BOZ (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. typical fancruft trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishanti

)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comic fancruft that lacks notability, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Boz. One or the other. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Vishanti have been covered enough to satisfy GNG. I came across them with stuff I borrowed for Eternity (and still have yet to finish incorporating...)
In the book Doctor Strange and Philosophy: The Other Book of Forbidden Knowledge, the Vishanti are mentioned in 7 of the contained essays. Several are in passing, but two are decent. Klofft discusses Strange's lack of faith, despite invoking the power of the god-like Vishanti in Doctor Strange, Moral Responsibility, and the God Question. Wright and Zehr discuss Strange's incantations to the Vishanti as parallels to him upholding his Hippocratic Oath and acting like a better physician after becoming Sorcerer Supreme in Doctor Strange, Master of the Medical and Martial Arts. In a separate work The Superheroes Devotional: 60 Inspirational Readings, Strauss discusses the Doctor Strange's relationship with the Vishanti and the parallels that can be drawn to a relationship with God before discounting them as similarities and not a relationship with God. I also saw some typical Top X stuff, but I won't bother with them.
Obviously the article doesn't currently reflect this Notability, but the sources only need to
WP:NORUSH... -2pou (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What exactly are you seeing in "Doctor Strange and Philosophy?" I'm looking at the name of the group and individuals, but it all seems to be trivial. I guess the second one is something, but I'd say it's more relevant to Strange than this grouping. I feel like the issue with a lot of these comic articles recently is most of the sources are much more relevant to the hero than the side characters. TTN (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't realize I wasn't watching. I was mainly referencing pages 210 and 240 for the two papers that I singled out from the rest of the book. It appears as though only p. 240 shows in the Google Books sample. I have an offline copy at the moment, but the strength of the other ref is about equivalent. Based on your comment, I believe you were able to see p. 240 and found that to be a passing mention. I just felt that references to religious beings in a comparative or contrasting light (although brief) were more than trivial plot. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how this passes
WP:GNG. I've reviewed sources presented by 2pou. Well, first one (second one is not available for me to view). First source however doesn't go beyond a few plot-summary-type mentions in passing, that's not good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just about anything Doctor Strange related is going to talk about this. If Doctor Strange is notable then so is this by common sense alone IMO. But I guess the burden of proof is on me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have access to
WP:AGF is a very important philosophical point here on Wiki: we should assume good faith in 2pou's analysis of the sources and not simply vote delete because we can't access them. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Let this page stay. @BOZ:, @2pou:, and @FOARP: are right about the coverage. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FOARP:Thanks for the mention to bring to attention I wasn't watching the page. Anyway, yes, there is AGF, but I did provide the Google Books links thinking that they were searchable in case people wanted to weigh in, so let me know if something isn't working for you. For a closer look, I think you should be able to use the search box on the links provided. It appears there are other access issues people are having issues as well. I'm not sure why the second might not be available for viewing... I thought that was the one easier to search. Maybe I can figure out a different way to link if need be. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing how the sourcing passes
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing would be lost through deletion (
WP:SPINOFF applies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian School of Budapest

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

Just found this stub article while patrolling recent changes. It seems IPs tried to add promotional and unsourced content, and I reverted them. I did a quick

^📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find any instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this school. The mentions I did find appeared to be either advertising, or otherwise not independent of the school, or simply drive-by references to it that did not discuss anything about the school in detail.
WP:GNG failed. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No notable content. No notable alumni. Nothing useful. Perhaps could start over with new sources. Bubbasax (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not based on what is in the article. Sure it's just a bad stub, but it took me just seconds to find enough in depth coverage of the school to justify an article. How about http://budapesttimes-archiv.bzt.hu/2012/09/07/international-christian-school-of-budapest-2/ for example? A lengthy article about the school by the Budapest TImes. 19 years old in 2012, accreditation, facilities, AP classes, significant foreign student population, interview with the director... It's one of the more expensive high schools in Hungary per https://dailynewshungary.com/schools-for-the-elite-the-most-expensive-high-schools-in-hungary/ . Not useful directly for notability, but there's an interesting commentary by a former student on the motivation of the school's teachers here http://hungarianfreepress.com/2018/01/23/pastor-steven-anderson-a-vitriolic-american-baptist-and-his-hungarian-connection/ (it's just a personal aside by the writer and does not associate the school with the main topic of the article) . I think there's more than info available to justify an article, and I'm sure if I spent more than a few seconds on an English search there would be more. Meters (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Budapest Times article in my

WP:BEFORE, it's clearly not independent of the subject as it is written by an employee of the school (e.g., "And we’re growing – 2012-2013 brings our largest enrollment ever..."). Similarly I saw the Daily News Hungary article, but it's a one-sentence-mention, not significant coverage. Likewise I saw the Hungarian Free Press piece, but this hardly says anything about the school and is anyway written by a former pupil (not independent). I didn't see anything indicating notability. FOARP (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I explicitly said that Hungarian Free Press piece was not directly useful for establishing notability and that it was by a former student. Why are you repeating that?

This is a Hungarian school. Did you look at Hungarian sources? If not then I don't think your Before was sufficient. I don't read Hungarian, but I have already asked at the schools project for assistance from anyone who does in looking for sources. I am almost certain that an expensive foreign (English) high school with AP courses and a more-than-25-year history can be shown to be notable, regardless of what we have found so far. Meters (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at any source that mentioned the subject findable through Google. You openly admit that you didn't look at Hungarian sources but yet you still voted keep - so I'm not sure why you're raising this point. FOARP (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection. Your logic seems to be seriously flawed. I obviously think the subject is notable based on the English sources I have read. You seem to be to saying that I should not have formed an opinion that it was notable without having first read Hungarian sources. That's ridiculous. While I think that any claim that it is not notable .must ensure that there are no useful sources in Hungarian, it is certainly not necessary to do so to determine that it is notable. And that's why I raised the question of Hungarian sources, to answer your question. You state that you did

WP:BEFORE so I asked if you looked at Hungarian sources. Meters (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"This is a Hungarian school. Did you look at Hungarian sources? If not then I don't think your Before was sufficient". 1) I did look at the Hungarian sources, 2) you did not, 3) obviously I don't think the English-language directories and bare-mentions of the school are sufficient, 4) a good

WP:BEFORE reviews all available relevant documents as a document may cast doubt on the notability of something rather than supporting it (e.g., it shows that there are multiple subjects with the same name). FOARP (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am well aware of what I wrote, and thanks for finally giving a clear answer to the question I asked almost two weeks ago, whether you had looked at Hungarian sources. I accept that you did

WP:BLUDGEON

and I will not reply to you again. I'm sure the admin who closes this AFD will give your position its due consideration.

I would be interested in hearing from the OP

User:Masumrezarock100 and the third editor user:Bubbasax who thought this article should be deleted. Neither of them has commented since this article was improved. The OP is active, but Bubbasax was only active on En.Wikipedia that one day and may no longer be active. Meters (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the ping. I may look like active here, but I usually come here for replacing files hosted on Commons and revert vandalism. I totally had forgotten about this AFD. Regarding the article from Budapest Times, it did come up in my search results during WP:BEFORE but one source isn't nearly enough to establish notability. All other links I could find in the search results are profiles of the school and none of them are what I'd call independent sources. For the record, I do not speak/understand Hungarian, so it is hard for me to assess a Hungarian source's quality. To be honest, I couldn't find any news article/reliable good source about this school on Google search not even in Hungarian. Please ping me if you reply. Thanks.

^📞 00:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

http://budapesttimes-archiv.bzt.hu/2012/09/07/international-christian-school-of-budapest-2/ - good coverage but not independent, highly promotional
https://dailynewshungary.com/schools-for-the-elite-the-most-expensive-high-schools-in-hungary/ - as Meter's said, it's like a directory, but not in-depth coverage.
http://hungarianfreepress.com/2018/01/23/pastor-steven-anderson-a-vitriolic-american-baptist-and-his-hungarian-connection/ - only passing mentions
If did a quick assessment of the sources Meters provided but none of them doesn't appear to contribute towards GNG. PER WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, all schools must meet GNG and have
^📞 00:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am a parent of a student at the school. I would like to add to the article but I see that the page is up for deletion!!! What is this nonsense? Who would do something like this? Please reset the article to what it used to be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:205:1F34:D51F:2E20:8F8B:EB07 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's being considered for deletion. You may still add material to the article while it's at AFD. If you do add material it's a good idea to mention it here so that editors know to reevaluate the article. Or you may provide sources here so that someone can add it for you. Meters (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks to the content and citations aded by
WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Following the additions by Grand'mere Eugene, I have gone and done various cleanup including infobox, text, added relevant categories and updated logo etc. I've also added about it being a popular choice among Chinese parents with a good journal citation (this one took some time to find). No longer a stub now. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the newly added sources:

1) The International Christian School of Budapest website is clearly not independent of the subject,
2) The ACSI website is simply a directory listing and not significant coverage, arguably not independent as it is part of the same religious schools movement as the school,
3) The Middle States Association website is simply a directory listing and not significant coverage,
4) "Displaying Diaspora: Chinese Christian Presence in Hungary after 1989" gives only a single, brief mention of the subject ("the International Christian School of Budapest and Hungarian schools with good educational reputation are also popular among Chinese parents" - and that's it),
5) The Middle States Association news article simply lists the school in a long list of schools that they accredit,
6) The "East-West Church Ministry Report" article is not a reliable source as it's a self-published news-sheet of a religious organisation, is not independent of the subject as the writers appear linked to it, and gives only a bare mention of it in a single sentence ("One of the major factors for missions relocating regional offices to Budapest has been the development of the International Christian School of Budapest, an accredited program (grades 1-12) with 150 students")
7) The AP Course Audit site is not significant coverage, is simply a directory,
8) The ACT International Test Centers list is simply a directory and as such not sigcov.

In summary, this is simply ref spam that does nothing to save the article and as such my delete vote stands. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

WP:RS situation is comparable to the use of Google Scholar data to verify a faculty member meets notability under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The relative scarcity of news sources for international schools, that for all practical purposes must be both in English and also online, should allow for the use of evidence a school is accredited, provides AP or IB curricula, has governmental approval, or provides pre-college testing through ACT or College Board testing. These are all evidence of notability. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

All of which is great for the school, and if I was deciding which school to send my kids to in Budapest would certainly influence me, but in the context of a delete discussion on wiki does not amount to much, since these bodies are only mentioning this school as a school they accredit in long lists, and provide no other detail about it. The coverage from them does not constitute significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We almost invariably keep articles on secondary schools, which I take to include one that teaches to US grade 12. I might be happier if the article were able to indicate whether this is a school of 50 pupils (which would probably be NN) or 500+, which I would expect to have a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not invariably keep high schools, and indeed I have seen many instances of them being deleted. That might have been the practise pre-2017 but since then

WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Peterkingiron: We had an older mention of 150 students, but current claims are 230 to about 235. I've added the 230 from the school's fast facts page. Meters (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do invariably keep high schools eventually unless we can find no reference.

WP:GNG is easy to prove for a genuine school- as we have to prove 'wikinotability' (existence of published references) not notablity as used in common speech. Every school is subject to independant inspection (fire safety not just academic) and in most countries appraisal for building control. All solid RS material. We only have to prove that the reports will exist not to present them to be read. Silly when you think about it. So we do invariably keep high schools eventually. ClemRutter (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment -

reliable sources - and these are still lacking. Simply being listed in directories or lists of accredited schools does not demonstrate notability. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Response- still keep A quick glance using the search 'International schools in Budapest list' shows that there are 14 international schools. The comparison sites are written for the American ex-pat community give a variety of links to follow. Google the name and there are 12.3 million links. The sites advertising for chaplains and teachers give detailed descriptions. They stress everything is done in English as that is the students only common language. Debating nuances of RS when talking about Central European countries is really a diversion from writing a encyclopedia.A parent gets basic facts from Schools Database or for a second more Brit orientated independant source look at |Good schools guide. This school doesn't make it, hardly surprising as they do an American K-12 curriculum not IGCSE or IB. Teach Beyond comes up with some excellent photoss, and disturbing facts. ICSB is described as a missionary school, where the teachers work as volunteers or on a small $200 stipend. They are unqualified. We need the article just for this horrifying fact. ClemRutter (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment – Here are two searches that may be run to find sources:

To find sources in Hungary (that is, on "
top-level domain websites) in whatever language, you can execute this search: "International Christian School of Budapest" site:hu
All of the results will be based in Hungary, even if they are in English, as is likely.

To find Hungarian sources, or at least, sources in any language that reference the Hungarian name of the school, you can execute this search: "Budapesti Nemzetközi Keresztyén Iskola". Note that the Hungarian school name appears to be used rarely; even Hungarian language sites mostly use the English name. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrinder Singh (disambiguation)

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

Not necessary considering how short the page is. Could be easily solved with a hatnote at the top of “Amrinder Singh” KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one Amrinder Singh. One of the other two entries has a different spelling and the other has Singh as a middle name only (John Fitzgerald rightly doesn't list John F. Kennedy). One "distinguish" hatnote for the former is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added a couple more entries. Useful dab page. PamD 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've nominated the singer for deletion, and one politician's name is "Amarinder"; close, but no cigar. That leaves two entries, so
WP:TWODABS applies. (A second, distinguish hatnote could be used for Amarinder.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Seems people could confuse Amarinder/Amrinder. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:PamD work. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Very often in Punjabi names, the last name isn't used, so
Amrinder Singh Gill or Amrinder Singh Raja Warring could also be referred to as Amrinder Singh, as is even evident from those articles as they stand and the spellings Amarinder and Amrinder are used interchangeably, as is evident from the references in those articles. Therefore there are at least 4 listings for the dab (someone who actually works on dabs - PamD et al, can fit these two in). —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments Have tidied it up and restored names. An entry should not be removed just because it has been proposed for deletion, only if it is deleted. Have restored singer's sourced full name to his article as it had been lost in series of edits. Useful dab page. PamD€

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 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Minister

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

Non-notable composer. Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Covert advertising. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Begoon 06:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

PlayStation Music

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

Basically a service provided by Spotify on PlayStation. No need for separate article. Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 29 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) 16:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielė Gylytė–Hein

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

Not notable pianist and honorary consul. Declined prod. Renata (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Honorary consul" from a country to a subnational unit of another country is not an "inherently" notable role that would exempt her from having to get over
WP:GNG on the sourcing, nothing else here adequately demonstrates that she would have gotten into Wikipedia for any other reason besides the "diplomatic" job, and the sourcing is not adequate to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Honorary consul to a unit of another country does not make inherent notability, and there is nothing else that would satisfy GNG here.
talk) 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sixth Renaissance

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

Academic concepts can be notable, but here this one does not seem to be (fails

WP:GNG). As far as I can tell, this term has been used by one niche academic article ([8]) which according to GScholar has not been cited by anyone yet, and no other scholar has used this term. I also searched for the Polish rendering of this ("szósty renesans") and I am not seeing any discussion in Polish sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also could not find any independent sourcing for this particular notion of a Sixth Renaissance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be entirely based on one guy's interpretation, with no independent uptake (thanks for cecking the Polish term). --16:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete a Neologism. If the person who developed the concept is notable, something might be merged to a BIO-article. However in a period when Latin and Greek are no longer regularly taught in school, we are surely in a period when the classics are in decline, not renaissance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 29 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. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JaiHind TV

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

I think the Article is not elegible to be on Wikipedia. The information Provided in the page is Fake and non reliable with poor citations. Shivmagari (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep. Subject has received significant and detailed coverage in independent reliable sources which meets
talk) 14:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes GNG and BROADCAST. want to talk? 07:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, meets
sources that discuss this tv channel. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, meets
WP:BCAST as it is verifiable. I don't think the info is erroneous the nom seems to have mistaken. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawid Krzyżowski

Dawid Krzyżowski (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)

A sportperson bio created by a blocked editor (sock). Not clear if he passes
WP:GNG (I read Polish, and sources used are very niche - local news portals and like, most are mentions in passing or reprinted press releases or little better). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1)

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 article contains only Original Research that is mostly fan-based, and holds no citations whatsoever. It fails to address things such as an episode list and ratings, and thus holds no notability whatsoever. The article should be deleted if no solution can be presented to correct the issues it raises. GUtt01 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that it is "only original research" or "fan-based", the article seems perfectly standard for these type of TV shows, and the topic is obviously notable (see e.g. this article. I'm usually not a fan of the "AfD is not for cleanup" mantra, as what some people describe as cleanup are often very fundamental problems, but in this case the article, which could use improvements of course, is already perfectly acceptable as is. Add one or two sources, easily found, tag whatever you truly believe to ve dubious, and remove all wrong information (if any), but don't delete a neutral, factual article about a notable topic.
Fram (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: That's the problem here. The article has serious issues, and if you haven't seen the discussion regarding I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1), you can't really state Keep for an article unless you can see the underlining argument behind this one's AfD. Also note, that I stated the article should be deleted only if "no solution can be presented to correct the issues" being raised. GUtt01 (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one on that discussion wants deletion though, the opinions are split between keep or redirect. Your nomination statement here should have indicated at least that the necessary information is already in the main article, but instead you went for "only original research" and "mostly fan-based", which are not convincing reasons to get rid of this (and the many others you also nominated). This is the kind of topic which gets articles in "Le Nouvel Observateur" (see above), but also Le Figaro[9] or Le Parisien[10]. Not solely reporting the outcome, also reviewing other episodes[11] with ratings[12]. So basically all you need to show that this season is a notable topic and with plenty of potential to make this decent article a much better one.
Fram (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
But there is only one season of this French edition of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! covered out of two. That raises the question of needing to have separate articles for this programme on only a handful of seasons, of which only one got coverage and the other was never given that. To not understand the arguments raised is a serious concern - those who raise redirect have voiced arguments about how these types of programmes are handled. GUtt01 (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a
WP:WAX argument. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Failure to do
WP:BEFORE it is for the nominator to assure themselves that there is no alternative for deletion before they bring the article to AFD. The second season (i.e., this year's) is with a different format and arguably a different topic (in many cases a 13-year-long-gap would lead people to think that they are actually different programs). FOARP (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to main article as after 9 years of 0 sources, it clearly fails
WP:V. Seeing as how there is almost no prose at all and it is only 2 tables, there is no reason why this can't be merged into the main article if deemed important (albeit, again, unsourced for 9 years). --Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -
WP:DELREASON. PS - refs have also been added to the article. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth. CSD G11, unambiguous advertising. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIOReview Magazine

CIOReview Magazine (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)

Entirely unsourced article about a magazine that makes no real claims to notability. I can find no independent sources that discuss this magazine in any detail. Fails
WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is zero sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion,
WP:CSD#G11. --Randykitty (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 3)

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 following article is one of six being nominated for deletion; the other five include:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Reasons for these include:

Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated, and mainly would be relevant to fans of the programme, and thus can't be retained. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Trails, and special challenges.

Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each season, bar the 3rd and 7th. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go; the table in the 8th with the pictures should be remade to match the others, minus the pictures, while those in the 3rd and 7th have to be dealt with as well.

No Episode Table - Articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the seasons. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.

Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving. The 3rd and 8th also have no infobox for these respective seasons, unlike the other existing articles for the programme.

Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check all those used in the articles and remove those not valid; any for fan-based items will not be relevant to remain.

Ratings Tables - Only the 10th season up to the 13th have such a table. And those from the 11th to the 13th are designed with dividers which are not acceptable. These tables must be linear and not feature dividers at all and need to be amended.

Additionally, none of the seasons before the 3rd, and between the 3rd and 7th are covered. Their absence will raise questions over whether the nominated articles should remain or not. In all, these issues require an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely be that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, see my reasoning at
Fram (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: There are serious problems with this article and those bundled within its AfD, and the underlining argument for this AfD's creation can be found here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1). The fact that articles for some of the seasons already been broadcast are missing, adds to the argument against why these should be kept. GUtt01 (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - AfD is not for provoking discussion on how to deal with article content.
normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If the purpose of this AfD is simply to promote discussion about how to deal with article content, then it should be procedurally closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all - Nom indicates
WP:BEFORE not done, as AussieLegend points out this is not a proper AFD but instead an invitation to just go and fix page-quality issues. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all Per WP:GNG. This is within the WP:GNG criteria. Mass nominations are also not a good way to handle a clean up request.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 29 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) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First related to Hindi

First related to Hindi (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)

A very vague and confusing list that appears to have the potential to include any 'first' that is related to Hindi. Even from the two items already in the list, it's clear that this could span a near-infinite number of items. The title is confusing, inclusion criteria is unclear, and there seems little to salvage from this. Hug^syrup 10:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too vague, and as can be seen from the first entry this is something better suited as prose in the article Hindi rather than in a list format. Would also be difficult to find an adequate and descriptive title for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too general - see
WP:SALAT. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete its not that "the list is too broad/general", the list simply doesnt make any sense. The only in the article says: Here the names of the first writers related to Hindi, books, places etc. have been given. But "first related to Hindi" as in what sense? Also, most of the list would lead to
WP:OR. One of the two entries is already original research, "the first university to teach Hindi". An un-encyclopaedic list that is too vague to understand whats it about. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List with no real context. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunt celebru, scoate-mă de aici! (Romanian series 1)

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 article fails to have any notability for existing, as it mostly focuses on a format of detailing out Original Research on events suited for any fans of the programme. The fact that no other seasons are also detailed of the programme leaves little choice but for the article to be deleted, and any notable, sourced information, to be merged with the article covering the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see my reasoning at
Fram (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Unfortunately, the argument to see the reasoning within the linked AfD fails on this one, as a programme which has only one or two seasons does not have much notability have separate articles on so few seasons. If it had three or more, yes, but then the question of course would be how this is laid out. A general discussion on programmes like this is gonna have to be conducted in the near future. GUtt01 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not believe that
WP:WAX argument. FOARP (talk) 11:54, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kändisdjungeln

Kändisdjungeln (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 article fails to focus on the programme and detail about its format, history and reception, seeming more focused on the season it ran for and the inclusion of Fan-focused Original Research. The article has not notability for existing, and should be deleted if no other solution can be given to change it out of its current arrangement. GUtt01 (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see my reasoning at
Fram (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Good sourcing, show on one of the two big networks in Sweden. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sourcing/references being used is not the issue. The fact is, the article is not focused on detailing this international edition of an established programme, but rather on a season of it. That is the major problem here. GUtt01 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As there is only one season of the show, there is no problem.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you argue in the other AfDs that the info is already in the parent article, but in this case this is the parent article. Topic is clearly notable (enough sources in article, plus things like this.
Fram (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is "only" notable if it includes information on the programme, NOT JUST A SEASON OF IT!GUtt01 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty logic. There was only one season. Not a big hit in Sweden. This is the information needed. Another article in the series itself would contain one or two sentences. BabbaQ (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – I'm not sure if the people who talk about
WP:NOTINHERITED). It is listed in I'm_a_Celebrity...Get_Me_Out_of_Here!#International_versions, and any relevant information could be merged there. I don't see notability for a standalone article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A further comment: I had never heard of the Swedish show and had only heard the title of the English-language one, and I can say that reading the article Kändisdjungeln gives me very little information. There are tables (unsourced, apparently original research) listing who won which trial and who was eliminated when, but they are very difficult to understand since jargon such as "safe" and "bushtucker" is never explained, nor is the column "Number of Stars". Since there aren't any sources talking about the show itself, those things can't be explained, and so it is essentially an article for the fans of the show. I'm guessing that the concepts are explained with sources in the article about the original show, and that is a reason to have this title redirect to that article (since we can obviously not add sources that explain a different TV show and don't mention Kändisdjungeln to the article about the Swedish version – the rules are presumably not identical, and as we can't know that, well...) --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why this editor has decided that the Goteborgs-Posten article is a press-release. It is not marked as such, it quotes Aftonbladet (which a press-release would be unlikely to do), and it is from a
WP:NEWSORG. The same goes for all the other articles that they marked "Press Releases". Please note that Google occasionally marks things as press-releases or blogs that are in fact news articles, particularly from non-English-language sources. There are numerous instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that have now been added to the article and which, given their critical nature, clearly were not press-releases. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD is not a clean-up or request service. Article subject falls within WP:GNG. Any requests can be filed at the articles talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has argued to delete (or keep) the article based on its current state, as far as I can see, so the "no cleanup" comment doesn't address anything. (In fact, the article has been cleaned up a bit during this AfD process.) Also, who here has a conflict of interest, that they would need to use the article talk page for edit requests? Sorry, I find that reasoning rather baffling. As for Article subject falls within WP:GNG – simply repeating that it is so doesn't automagically make it so. Where is the significant coverage in independent sources? There are three press releases and two gossip type pieces published when the show was in its planning stages, about some celebrities that had been cast for it. (I was wrong in my post above; I said that there were three of the latter, but in fact the Aftonbladet piece is also a press release reprint – I'll fix that reference.) Again: there needs to be sourcing about the show itself. --bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A number of new references regarding this show (a notable flop) have been found and added to the article. Given the critical nature of the coverage of the show (it describes it as a "fiasco" and a "disaster") this coverage clearly cannot be criticised for not being independent of the show. Similarly this is coverage in what appears to be reliable sources (e.g., Aftonbladet and Expressen). FOARP (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it be noted for the closing admin that the nominator wanted to withdraw the nomination.BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, I didn't properly read about the section regarding Nomination Closure. As there is one person stating "Delete", I can't withdraw nomination on this AfD. Hence, why my earlier Withdraw Nomination move had to be reverted by me. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 1)

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 following article is one of six being nominated for deletion; the other five include:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Reasons for these include:

Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated, and mainly would be relevant to fans of the programme, and thus can't be retained. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Trails, and special challenges.

Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each series. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go.

No Episode Table - Articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the seasons. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.

Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving.

Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check all those used in the articles and remove those not valid; any for fan-based items will not be relevant are to remain.

If editors can determine how best to deal with the issues I have pointed out, and figure out what to do with the articles in order to rectify the problems, then they could avoid deletion. But this will acquire an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, see my reasoning at
Fram (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1) for the underlining argument for this AfD GUtt01 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - These are all well referenced articles. There may be some OR that needs to be fixed but AfD is not for cleanup.

it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. - They already are nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - "it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion" - means that that is a possibility if the consensus on the articles does not make suggestions on how to deal with them. If anyone suggest KEEP, they've got to understand one thing: Information that would only sate Fans and is purely OR cannot be included. I should also point out my decision to conduct an AfD is to provoke discussion on how to deal with the issues raised, not to simply put them out for deletion (that is the only action if nothing is done to deal with the problems). One of the more key issues these articles have is they list extensive breakdowns of the seasons regarding there tasks, a factor that is pure OR and has little to non-existant sourcing. To simply put them in as a major problem, because who is going to want to know this other than those who are fans of the programme? And the table being used to cover results and eliminations is so complicated and complex - what kind of editor thought that was going to be useful? It's excessive and overinflated. GUtt01 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not for provoking discussion on how to deal with article content.
normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If the purpose of this AfD is simply to promote discussion about how to deal with article content, then it should be procedurally closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's hear what others have to say first before simply closing it. The AfD that is ongoing over the season article for the British original has shown a split opinion on the matter, though a number have raised concerns regarding these type of articles for these types of programmes and the style and layout they facilitate. I do believe that if there is a general consensus for cleanup, then the appropriate template for it should be added to these articles when this AfD is closed. GUtt01 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE - The British programme has other issues that don't affect this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Look between the more recent season articles for the Australian edition and then those of the British edition. Note that despite some differences, there is a similarity in layout. Arguing
WP:OSE is not a reasonable point because that can cut both ways. GUtt01 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Layout is an article content issue which, as has been stated here and elsewhere, is not what AfD is about. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Nom indicates
WP:BEFORE not done, AFD is not clean-up, articles appear referenced. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All per FOARP. Bookscale (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issues here are around article cleanup, not about them failing notabilty.
WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All - AfD is not a clean-up service. Clearly covers the WP:GNG criteria. BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as per
WP:OR can be easily fixed by editors -Happily888 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All - I have previously worked on adding suitable references to these articles (if sporadically). I am also willing to help create episode tables if I can find reliable references for the relevant information. I would rather see these articles cleaned up to an agreed standard (even if some information is removed) before having them deleted entirely. Perhaps
WP:WPTV and/or the Reality television task force can help us come up with an standard article structure that deals with the issues these articles face? --Reader781 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Just deleting a redirect. Article has been draftified. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Shukla

Aryan Shukla (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
Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 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. czar 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection, Nevada

Perfection, Nevada (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)

Imperfect article consisting mostly of unnotable plot details, the rest being which movies and TV series were set there. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I like Tremors, this page is better suited for the Tremors Wiki, not here.TH1980 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party sources to support independent notability. I would not be opposed to a redirect to the original film (Tremors), but I am uncertain if it would be particularly useful for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. typical fancruft trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bell Peaks

Anna Bell Peaks (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: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. #1, #6, and #9 are database entries. #2, #3, and #4 are interviews/profiles on sketchy websites. (Please note that these are NSFW.) #10 is a gimmicky listicle of pornographic performers' political views which includes a short quote from Ms. Peaks. The remaining refs are industry award rosters or press releases: the awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and didn't find significant biographical coverage, only several other gimmick "pornographic actors share their views on Foo" articles with quotes from her, some based on the youtube series "Ask A Pornstar": [14][15]; news coverage of her appearance at a South African pornography expo[16]; some more interviews[17][18]; and assorted passing mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award wins didn't count even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. The article fails to cite non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. My own search for sources makes me agree with the nominator. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I created this article when
WP:ENT per this, and this. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I took back my vote at 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC). —usernamekiran(talk) 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: All of those AVN articles are press releases/PR content: note that the urls are https://avn.com/business/press-release/.... I have no idea how significant the YNOT cam award ceremony is within the pornography industry, but the announcements/advertisements for it don't amount to independent coverage of Ms. Peaks. The other sources you've suggested are more gimmicky "pornstar opinions on Foo" articles, mainly tabloid churnalism of the "Ask a Porn Star" youtube series: for instance, the Daily Mail and Sun articles both cover a youtube video in which about a dozen different pornographic actresses talk about alternate career paths; both include the same short quote from Ms. Peaks. Cheers, gnu 57 17:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO was deprecated because, shunned by reliable mainstream sources, porn is all too often left with promotional sources and the porn itself. That is not a good basis for verifiable and balanced articles. The AVN articles are clearly marked as press releases (promotional primary sources). Tabloids like The Sun are not reliable, and
WP:BASIC. The rationale behind PORNBIO (as with other SNG's) was that reliable source coverage would likely be found eventually. I subscribed to that belief myself. However, after 12 years, consensus is that the PORNBIO rationale does not hold water. Even when PORNBIO was in effect, award nominations were removed because award ceremonies (AVN especially) tend to nominate almost everybody for something. AFAIK, the Inked Award never met the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO or even the ultra-permissive award-has-a-Wikipedia-article test of 12 years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree on most of the points presented by both of you. But it is not an isolated coverage. The subject/Peaks receiving coverage is a routine thing, persistence. That is something for a person from porn industry. Also, (for a pornstar) 1 million followers is quite a fanbase, as stated by few sources. Thus passing #2 of
WP:ENT. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete press releases do not lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:ENT? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, without acknowledgement from independent
WP:RELIABLE sources, claims of satisfying any criterion of WP:ENT cannot be substantiated. Republished press releases don't cut it. • Gene93k (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

yeah, but sometimes we have to use
WP:COMMONSENSE, than being a total bureaucrat/wikilawyer. We are talking about a porn actress with more than a dozen award wins, and 1 million followers. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not wikilawyering to state the PORNBIO is dead and that it was killed for good reasons. And to restate an important point: porn awards are considered self promotion by the porn industry. Counts of Twitter followers are controversial even in the mainstream, never mind in an industry notorious for bombing the net with self promotion. Internet flooding was a concern written into the original PORNBIO guideline way back in 2006. Porn can be notable, but it needs coverage by trustworthy sources. The new consensus is that exempting porn from regular demands for quality sources was bad policy. It's not about bureaucracy, it's about Wikipedia's maturing as a credible reference work. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not know why anybody is discussing PORNBIO since it no longer exists. I agree with Gene93k. According to our current standards, which are the only standards that count now, this person is not notable. A "million followers' is marketing baloney in the age of lying bots, fake social media accounts, and stacked voting. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not porn industry sources that lie all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I Banged My Tattooed Stepsister in the Ass" is a seminal masterpiece and was robbed at the Oscars that year, but the coverage in media outside of AVN and other in-house/in-porn-industry media does not exist for this person. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per previously mentioned reasons.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above arguements. Fails GNG and other notability guidelines.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as
G12. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexander Trondl (musician)

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

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

Subject is a drummer of a metal band. A
talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

All the content is copied from Facebook. I've nominated the page for G12 speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 29 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) 05:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Watt

Dusty Watt (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:NMUSIC and WP:NACADEMIC? Not sure if the last one covers the article. There also seems to be a COI issue as the subject's son is the creator and the main of two content contributors, the second of which would be reasonable to assume is a close relative of the subject. ².O.^Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. just commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. (Also, major COI issues.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any RS regarding this subject. Completely non-notable. --Kbabej (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed to all above not notable. --Thomastheboxingwriter (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the part of the article on his forensic work nor on his music show any evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Labex Labaki

Michel Labex Labaki (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 so comically promotional it's borderline G11, but I figured I'd take it to AfD just in case. Almost all the sources cited are not independent, including Labaki's website and businesses that sponsor him.
A Google search wasn't much more productive. The best I found was this interview in Bass Musician, which is an online-only publication with a narrow audience. Everything else I found is either trivial or not independent or both.
Additionally, a major contributor, Guygosis, has a barely-declared COI (as in, he mentions it in the captions of images he's uploaded like File:A picture of michel labaki.jpg, but nowhere else) since he is (or was) "the media manager of 8e Art entertainment" and "Michel Labaki is one of our exclusive artists". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he had achieved more notability the article could be cleaned up to remove the blatantly promotional puffery, but he has not made the leap beyond some esoteric experts. He does have a cover story at Bass Musician magazine [27] and a few other pieces there, though the nominator has a good point on this being a non-notable magazine, and I also found a brief write-up in a similar publication called No Treble, but these are of interest to a very small community. Even those are few in number, and his albums, appearances, and workshops have not been noticed anywhere else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:08, 30 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. An event with no
lasting coverage at this time. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

ISS wave

ISS wave (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)

A
WP:BEFORE search did not turn up lasting coverage of this event. Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Surprised delete - Surprisingly I did not see any evidence of significant coverage of this event outside of December 2010. As such this fails
WP:LASTING. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and as such will not have articles on events with no lasting impact. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, does not meet
WP:EVENT ie. no lasting or significant affects. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with International Space Station because the article fails GNG. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is a concern about attribution, any admin can retrieve the list of pre-merge contributors and place it on the relevant Talk page. However, the merge target was later redirected (not merged), so it is not clear that we are currently using any content that needs to be attributed. RL0919 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Defence Force

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Planetary Defence Force

Articles for deletion/Planetary Defence Force (2nd nomination)

Planetary Defence Force (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 cannot find any academic or journalistic publications that have discussed this concept in a meaningful way. The article is little more than a collection of in-universe information that would only interest the most obsessive of Warhammer 40,000 fans. Furthermore, the title of the article is far too general for it to be a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 years ago, this AfD was closed as a merge and redirect, but it was neither merged nor redirected, and in those 13 years, has been slightly improved but not changed to the point where we shouldn't still merge and redirect it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's because this kind of thing happens. Perhaps this needs to be turned into a redirect and protected. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fully admit I missed that. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and protect, or just delete if no attribution is necessary. No decent sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable, and with overly vague meaning. There can certainly be a real life "Planetary Defense Force" if the Earth is threatened by an asteroid or some such, meaning it would feel like at least somewhat of a
WP:SURPRISE to redirect it to Warhammer._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes; I'm not opposed to deleting this outright. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual-variety fancruft trivia. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are virtually no reliable secondary sources discussing the topic of the article. Additionally, the actual title is a rather generic, pretty common term used in multiple works unrelated to Warhammer, making it an inappropriate redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. typical fancruft trivia. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 15:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Thomas Watt

Benjamin Thomas Watt (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)

Clear fail of WP:GNG and there seems to be a major issue regarding WP:NPOV seeing as the main (and one of only three) contributor is the subject himself. I also think it’s reasonable to assume at least one of the other two content contributors is also the subject himself, but that is only speculation. ².O.^Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom that there is a COI here. Article creator is the subject and one other account seems to be the same person. A clear case of
WP:Self-promotion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/draftify. Found a few sources:
Cancer survivor talks about struggle with sexuality in boxing industry, there is a lot here that likely could replace or double the other sourcing.

Benji Watt: In this podcast Benji talks about being the first openly gay boxing judge in New Zealand and his upcoming marriage., 27-minute interview, likely not hard news but still useful.

Being the world’s first openly gay boxing judge does lend that at least some of the content should be merged to other articles. The remaining content doesn’t seem to be contested as much as bordering promotional. There is also plenty of primary sources that could be used as he is a vlogger. What’s surprising is that anything exists, as judges are not known for getting any attention, and boxing, even less. I would merge what we can for now, and draftify as he’s one or two articles too soon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only two independent sources I could find were the i.stuff.co.nz article you mentioned and this from gaynz.com. Do two articles in the space of five years satisfy GNG? Or does
WP:SUSTAINED come into play? I’m still trying to familiarise myself with the guideline. Also, I find the whole "first openly gay boxing judge" aspect to be very dubious; as you said, boxing judges rarely gain any attention, so how can one know if Steve Gray or Tony Weeks aren’t openly gay? There could be thousands of openly gay boxing judges that haven’t been interviewed by media. The subject might just be the first person to state their sexuality in an interview. I suppose that’s a completely different gripe though. — ².O.^Boxing 11:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you’d need a source that counters him being the first or only gay boxing judge. It’s not a field I’m familiar with so I can only guess there are other sources out there but I’d rather wait until a few more mainstream sources report on him.

also found Another barrier has been knocked out in sport - New Zealander Benjamin Watt is believed to be the first ever openly-gay male professional boxing judge.Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found one that mentions the topic History Made as Transgender Boxer Wins Professional Contest in USA --Thomastheboxingwriter (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the link provided above says he is the first openly gay judge in New Zealand, not the world. Does this not bring the whole "world’s first openly gay boxing judge" aspect into doubt? It’s also the most recent of the few. — ².O.^Boxing 10:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It’s a small enough and easily defined field that if *anyone* else said they were also an openly gay boxing judge we’d report that too and NPOV represent the facts. I think Watt still comes out ahead on that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But which "fact" is to be reported? World's first, or New Zealand's first? One potentially reliable source says "world’s first" and another says "New Zealand's first". — ².O.^Boxing 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As they appear to be the *only* openly gay pro boxing judge I’d say world’ first. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This whole article is a blatant COI, and inappropriate
WP:Self-promotion. (The subject of the article did not help his case by recently deleting the "COI" notice (it was later reinstated by another editor).) While this person might arguably be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, this should be rewritten from scratch by other people, with no involvement from the subject. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I think the real question is if the present article is fixable through normal editing practices; absolutely. So deleting only serves to waste time and remove the COI traces from its history which also seems like a bad idea.

And no one has yet to assert that anything is untrue, just that some of it is self-serving. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He I am very new to this so I don't really know much but trying to learn from experience. I agree that its obvious that the main contributor created this article about himself. Which is a COI and doesn't provide a WP:NPOV. Sorry I didn't used them appropriately. But doesn't he meet the criteria WP:GNG for not only the subject of being First openly gay judge but other things that he has done as well? including: LGBT stuff - Young asked to share their coming-out stories , Boxing Promoter Boxing fireworks expected at Auckland's ABA Stadium , Boxing Manager Zane McNab's boxing comeback on track after freak accident left him urinating blood Geovana Peres And Lani Daniels Set For Epic Rematch On March 30th, This Time For WBO Light Heavyweight Championship Geovana Peres dominates late replacement opponent New Zealand LGBTI Award SPORTS PERSONALITY SHORTLIST. He obviously is some sort of Notability to the person, even if it is minor Notability, he is being mentioned in multiple sources even if the sources aren't directly about the subject. I think keep the article but completely needs to be rewritten by someone more experience with Wikipedia and no COI. --Thomastheboxingwriter (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, could you (User:Thomastheboxingwriter) please explain any relationship that you have with the subject (Benjamin Thomas Watt)? Are you Benjamin Thomas Watt yourself?? Ross Finlayson (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not Benjamin Thomas Watt. I have never met Benjamin so no relationship with him. but he is well know in the boxing community in New Zealand. --Thomastheboxingwriter (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a bit difficult to believe, given that almost all of your edits have been on Benjamin's page, and you were the editor who chose to delete the page's "COI" tag on 17 November 2019 (UTC)? Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You created your account 6 minutes before your editing spree on this page and ended with an edit to Geovana Peres whom, as you wrote, is a friend of Watts. Not buying it. The only way you could have made it more obvious is if you had edited your dads page, though I see you have taken the time to comment on his deletion page too. Interesting. --Pokelova (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey I thought it is time for me to weigh in here. I am the creator of the article and yes it is about me. I made this page back in 2015 because well my own ignorance and over excited for doing the things I enjoy doing. I stopped editing the page in 2018 because I realised that making the page and continuing editing it probably was wrong thing to do and so Obviously a Conflict of interest. If the Article gets kept, Deleted or any other action I accept that as I want to do what is best for Wikipedia. --Bennyaha (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Based on the history, this is a clear case of "Conflict of interest" and
talk) 11:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment - I checked the references given. The article / person fails
talk) 11:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information and communication technologies for development

Information and communication technologies for development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As discussed at
WP:ANI, virtually incomprehensible article, seemingly mostly original research, about what appears to be a series of somewhat loosely-related topics rather than one topic in general. Home Lander (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; saw the ANI discussion, very bad article for Wikipedia. Hardly something that can really been written about and a big
TNT case anyway. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Essay (or essays), incomprehensible, dreadfully long. Perhaps an online class project per [28].
WP:TNT. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply
]
Comment: Bishonen, confirmed as a class project per [29]. Home Lander (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essayish, and as per nomination; but I just love this template: This article may be incomprehensible. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear case of
WP:SYNTH -- while the article does have extensive sources, all are just sort of swirled together to create the impression that they are talking about the same subject. Michepman (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. series of poor essays joined together to make a meaningless article. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like they slipped up and admitted that this article is for a class project here. Honestly, I'm shocked that something this atrocious was able to linger around since 2005. I suspect that this project predated Wikimedia's guidelines on coordinating class projects. Michepman (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd say they "slipped up". It's not clear to me they were trying to hide that it was a class project. It's easily possible they didn't think they had to do anything. Even if this came after the guidelines, a lot of projects happen blissfully unaware of them. And there remains IMO a gap in how to handle projects outside the US and Canada. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps redirect to
WP:TNT, but this is a poster child for such an approach. No prejudice to re-creation as a proper article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As the editor who discovered the page and started the ani on it, the history is comprised of 100s of students submitting what appear to be vaguely related essays into this article, slowly bloating it over the decades. It's now 400,000+ bites and the 56th largest article, and consists of unscalable walls of text. The topic, whatever it is, seems to be notable, but the article is too messy to even figure what it's even talking about. Although I'm not fond of it as an argument,
Help out at CCI! 20:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete perhaps we should have an article on the concept. But the current article is unsalvageable, not least because the history suggests there could very well be a lot of uncaught copyvios. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Kay

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

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

Not seeing any signs that
WP:MUSICIAN is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I
looked online and found a number of possible sources. Can they be added to the stub? Bearian (talk) 16:30, 25 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) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have improved the article with some reliable sources. Please check.. Is it enough for notebility? I also added an award belongs to A Kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.187.19 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing visible that will satisfy
WP:BAND. Non-notable musician.scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails
WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Mixed Breed Obedience Registry

American Mixed Breed Obedience Registry (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)

Largely uncited almost orphan (one main space article links to it) that appears to have folded. Google search finds no link to a current webpage, and the link provided in the article appears to be a law firm now. Google books show a number of passing references in published books but in my opinion not sufficient to establish notability. Cavalryman (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another here today-gone tomorrow unremarkable dog registry that fails GNG & V. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such an article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. ESPECIALLY if it is orphaned. Cavalarious (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. Infantry-ician (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mixed breed dog is a
WP:RSs in the article or in the world. Spectacular fail of GNG. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 29 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. czar 07:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chizer

Chizer (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)

Completely fails GNG. Currently the article has a single unreliable source, when conducting a Google search I have found a single book that mentions the cross. Cavalryman (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A topic has to be notable in order for it to be allowed in Wikipedia; the Eurohound isn't. Cavalarious (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is NOT notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infantry-ician (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That one book sits on a self-publishing facility. William Harristalk 04:13, 29 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 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jug (dog)

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

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

Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. Google books shows up the usual “owners guides” and “complete owners manuals” from authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable, but nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A topic has to be notable in order for it to be allowed in Wikipedia; the Eurohound isn't. Cavalarious (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not notable at all. Infantry-ician (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I confirm - same book, different titles covering many of these crosses. William Harristalk 04:18, 29 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 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elo dog

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

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

Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. Any animal with a trademarked name is an instant red flag for me. I could locate only a single attributable passing mention on Google books, not enough to establish notability. Perhaps in time a kennel club will recognise these dogs and they will become notable, but the breeders will need to relinquish their trademark (and their business model) so for now TOOSOON. Cavalryman (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A topic has to be notable in order for it to be allowed in Wikipedia; the Eurohound isn't. Cavalarious (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. Infantry-ician (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This dog gets a mention in the "dog heavy-weight": Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition by Adam Miklosi, which confirms what went into the mix only. It could be argued that it fails GNG on the "multiple sources are generally expected" criterion. A full read of the article and its related links indicates that this article is used for promoting a business-related purpose. William Harristalk 04:26, 29 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) 05:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Francisco

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

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

@
WP:3RR, so I'll just take all four articles here. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Judge Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judge Sinfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judge Volt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No real world sources or information present so fail GNG, Not Plot, etc. TTN (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my original prod rationale which has not been challenged: Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. No independent notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all fail
WP:GNG, no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am surprised at how much of a war we still need to wage against fancruft. Maybe I should not be considering how far we moved to becoming the star wars extended universe wiki, and the Once Upon a Time wiki, but still.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any decent sources are identified. If there's an appropriate list or merge target and anyone feels that the content should be kept, I wouldn't be opposed to merges/redirects, but let's not just create redirects to Judge Dredd or something. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Entirely non-notable cruft. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_29&oldid=1142613154"