Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 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 speedy delete, copyright violation. —Kusma (t·c) 10:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Life (2002 film)

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

No evidence of any secondary sources or notability. No evidence of film’s release or distribution. Unable to find any independent sources other than IMDB Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Its a very short, 12 minute film that clearly fails
talk) 23:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. The nominator's ban was based on behaviors that do not appear to implicate this specific AFD, and the consensus of other participants was clearly for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Apostolina

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

~~I fail to see how this actor meets~~

~~WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)~~ - User has been site banned by Arbcom. (This may or may not change the final result based on consensus already established so far)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reliable sources, nothing to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:BEFORE from those above. -2pou (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as voice actor. I don't see any notable roles listed, just "additional voices" and really minor/guest roles. However, there are some LA Times articles that suggest his live-action acting could register a blip but these are local performances. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No appearances at anime conventions. [3] No starting articles as starting references from ANN. [4] Please give something besides the primary source credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 10:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to include these things in the anime related deletion discussions list for more people to notice them. Dream Focus 10:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors states
WP:ENTERTAINER Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He was one of the main characters for Ninja Scroll. He did the lead character for Super Dimension Century Orguss. Dream Focus 10:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ninja Scroll is a maybe as it was the 1995 dub of the film which was a direct-to-video. Orguss was for a direct-to-video of Orguss 02, hardly notable. No coverage of his role in any reviews, just existence. Please provide sources that back this up that aren't routine passing mentions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's subject neither meets
WP:ENT. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,could not find any reliable sources to satisfy notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not notable. RockingGeo (talk) 06:38, 10 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. Consensus for lack of notability Enterprisey (talk!) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Kaneko

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

~~No notability. JA wiki is also a stub. Fails~~

~~WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)~~ - User has been site banned by Arbcom. (This may or may not change the final result based on consensus already established so far)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - JA wiki is NOT a stub, stop making shit up. Evan1975 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Wow, how rude~
WP:PERSONAL ATTACK
right there, haha. I found only 5 sources in the JP article; you mind elaborating how that's not a stub? Also, you might wanna cite some actual guidelines, just saying. ^_^

~~Oh, by the way, aren't you the article creator? It's like you're totallly *not* biased or anything, am I right? Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

What I would argue is that the article should be kept, because I think that there is potential for some constructive

talk) 23:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The JA article is practically a filmography dump with less than one full paragraph for the biography. What's there to expand? Lack of sources is lack of sources. Do you have any guidelines to cite in your counterargument? ~~Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete There is a lack of sourcing that shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, nothing to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, No reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. No major roles. Nothing on ANN encyclopedia to lead to possible sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 10:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed by the name Harî Kaneko at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0437505/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t12 and elsewhere. Dream Focus 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source though as the content is user submitted and not overseen for mistakes. (see:
WP:A&M/ORS) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What about https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Hari-Kaneko/ ? What name is listed in the credits of these shows? There should be a searchable database somewhere that handles that. Can someone who speaks Japanese search Amazon in Japanese and see what appears? Dream Focus 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a situational source, and can be used to shortcut verify the roles as long as the credit itself has a green check-mark that leads to an on-screen capture of the closing credit that confirms the role. The problem is that I don't see any check marks next to the roles mentioned. I would go through the websites listed on our ORS list to see if you can find anything. Another good place to look is here: [5]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 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 04:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OnVaSortir!

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

One-liner with no references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Villefranche-sur-mer and Lyon, in order to find three good sources. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 03:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dunno that there's enough out there to justify significant coverage. Not a fan of deleting based on the state of the current article, but it really doesn't help this page's case. hewhoam areismyself 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 11 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) 21:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of police stations in Jammu and Kashmir

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

Not a notable topic, no independent sources covering this list Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given current status of article does not establish notability of topic as a whole, and, that, in contrast to say List of district police stations in Hong Kong, none of the listed police stations has any indication of individual notability. The deletion-nominated list is just sourced to http://www.jkpolice.gov.in/Police-Stations, is effectively a copy of that directory, and the Wikipedia list doesn't add any value given that is already public. And it is presumably updated!

By the way for Hong Kong there is also a list of historic police stations. It would be perhaps better to have one combined list of notable current and historic ones. To the creating editor: if there were a decent number of separate articles about individual police stations in an area, then it would be non-controversial to create a list of them plus others assessed to be notable (and having footnotes sort of establishing that) but not having articles. Currently

List of police stations in India. Contact me for help if interested. --Doncram (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: I started worldwide List of police stations and redirected "List of police stations in India" to the section there on India. With just the one known article so far. The world-wide list is valid, will be kept to only individually notable police stations having articles (bluelinks) or ones with supporting references establishing their list-item notability (either redlinks calling for articles to be created, or "blacklinks" not calling that way). I would merge the nominated list-article to there if it had any content to merge, but it does not, so "Delete" is still appropriate IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic does not establish notability Alex-h (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:MILL. I see that an article could be made about the recent crackdown, but this isn't it. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 7 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. Redirects can be created as necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamatula

)

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

Non-notable D&D topic. TTN (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for sources, under both the Hamatula name as well as the alternative "Barbed Devil", brings up nothing but the usual mixture of primary and fan sources. There are no reliable, secondary sources that discuss the creature in any length that would denote notability. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Not notable on its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting to
talk) 06:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable creature and fiction-cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Predacons. bd2412 T 03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Predacon

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Decepticon#Beast Era where they are mentioned. Not independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This would completely ignore the original Transformers G1 Predacons, which predated the entire Beast Era by about a decade. JIP | Talk 14:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Delete as having no clear target._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clear redirect target available. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to
List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Predacons suffice? @JIP, TTN, Zxcvbnm, and Knowledgekid87 czar 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- That would work, seeing as the majority of incoming links seem to be about the original G1 Predacons. We could have Predacon (Beast Wars) redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers or a similar target. JIP | Talk 22:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 3 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) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sider

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

Semi-advertorialized

WP:GNG pass requires more than just one source of that calibre. Artists, as always, are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clearly non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a few sources but notability is pretty marginal here.
talk) 22:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Per above,does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of
the sources are independent of the artist or his gallery. No evidence that any of his artwork in in any major art museum. For someone who's supposedly in the NYC art scene, there's literally zero articles about him on Google newspapers. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Notability is not indicated in the article nor in a BEFORE. Article creator and main editor is a single purpose account. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. and
WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 10 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) 21:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Cole

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

Biography that has lacked independent sources since 2010. I looked but didn’t find any. The two sources provided in the article are by her, not about her. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I, too, could find no reliable sources. The subject has self published one or two books via a vanity press. No notability shown in the article nor can any media coverage be found. Sorely fails
WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete that such a totally non-encyclopedia in tone article has survived for nine years is a clear sign that Wikipedia's article creation process is broken and we need to go to manadating that every article goes through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
to create an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 7 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) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mitchell-Quill

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

Fails

WP:NOTGENEALOGY almost certainly applies here. Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as well as the two articles on the parents. A daughter-published through self-published memoir of your spouse does not make three people notable, and it this case makes absolutely no one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
happily ordinary. Bearian (talk
)

Delete No evidence of notability, and as outlined above, this is yet another example of the article creator using Wikipedia to publish their family history. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Studied over a couple of days, and no real evidence of notability, in fact little solid evidence of anything. Claims in the edit history of personally-held material may be true, and some screenshots, etc., provided, but the editor, if they'd studied the policies at all, would know that this won't do - it might help with a couple of detail points if the basics were solid, but does not move the needle on proof of notability.SeoR (talk) 19:28, 9 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 soft delete.

WP:TOOSOON objection. RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What If I Was Gay

)

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

WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides being
coverage in the media for any reason. (My students forced me to listen to that rap, so I know something about it, now get off my lawn.) Bearian (talk) 19:51, 7 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 with no prejudice against merging into an article about silicone masks in general once one has been created. So Why 09:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of crimes involving a silicone mask

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

Overly specific list of non-notable examples as a collection of news events. What's next,

silicone mask, though not just to list every movie that employed them too. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Notable and relevant article. This AfD is tragic. The article was started yesterday. Prodded yesterday. And then AfD'd today.
WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep While only two of the incidents have their own articles right now, the subject is quite notable. Ample news coverage around the world for some of these events, not just in the nations that they take place in. We wouldn't list all crimes involving a gun since that's something quite common. Using silicone masks is not. I was going to make an article about crimes involving silicone masks, and decided to just make it a list article since that's what it was shaping up to be. Dream Focus 22:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes
WP:IMPERFECT, rather than deleting anything. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It would be preferable to have this list incorporated in a
silicone mask article, as there aren't all that many entries, but a couple of the sources do discuss its use in crimes, so LISTN is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:BLP perspective. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That target (
silicone mask) is a redirect and as such is not about silicone masks or crime. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes. I used the link because it was used above. The merge would be to mask, which is perfectly relevant. I'd want to see a section on silicone masks develop there to the point it needs to be spun out before seeing a stand-alone article for that (but that's a discussion apart from this AfD, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option would be to create a
silicone mask page, which appears to not exist yet, and make this one element of the page.ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. List of trivia,
WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not sure WP:OR applies to this list. The article creator made no attempt to
WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So the established criteria is "crimes involving a silicone mask" and the criteria for inclusion on the list is clearly met by each addition. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. In the absence of a silicone mask article to merge to, keep is the only viable option.4meter4 (talk) 04:17, 11 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. So Why 09:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-identified LGBTQ New Yorkers

)

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

We already have numerous

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every LGBTQ person who happens to live there if we're not doing the same for any other city on earth. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep the article: That line of reasoning is absolutely frivolous and ridiculous, Bearcat. Nobody "has" to create an article for "Los Angeles and San Francisco and Chicago and Seattle and Atlanta and Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver and London and Manchester and Berlin and Paris and Barcelona and Madrid and Rome and Sydney" - if those cities don't have enough
Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Firstly, you've completely missed the point. "If those cities don't have enough

WP:NOTABLE LGBTQ souls to list -----> then tough shit for them" literally has nothing to do with what I said, for starters — I picked the specific cities I named precisely because every one of those cities does have enough notable LGBTQ souls to create a list of: every last man jack one of them is a major international gay mecca whose importance in LGBTQ history is comparable to (or even surpasses, in the case of Berlin especially) NYC's. New York City, as important as it is, does not tower over all other cities as The Ultimate Colossus of the Gay World — it's merely one member of a large group of international world cities that all played significant roles in LGBTQ history, not the king-for-life of the club. The point isn't that other cities couldn't have similar lists, it's precisely that they all could — but whether they should is a different matter entirely. We definitely do not need a comprehensive set of dozens or hundreds of lists of LGBTQ residents of every individual city on earth that has a significant LGBTQ community, and NYC's is not more special than everybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia 101A: Just because something doesn't "have" to be there doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be there. Wikipedia 101B: Just because something is not there doesn't mean that something analogous can't or shouldn't be there. Each article is to be judged on its own merits, so stop the comparisons please.

Castncoot (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia 101C: When somebody tries to introduce a novel type of article into Wikipedia, it is entirely proper and appropriate to evaluate the logical consequences of accepting it. For example, is it a unique topic that stands alone as a uniquely notable thing, or is it a boilerplate topic for which dozens or hundreds or thousands of similar articles about other equivalent things could also be created — and if it's the latter, then do we really need or want that at all?

It's exactly the same principle as why we don't routinely accept all municipal fire or police departments, public library systems, mayors and city councillors, chambers of commerce, local chapters of national organizations, etc., as "inherently" notable just because they exist. Every city has those things, so making one particular city's local version of a universal thing notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires a lot more than just using one or two pieces of

WP:ROUTINE

local media coverage to demonstrate that it exists. Thousands or even millions of other equivalent topics can always show exactly the same — so the notability test, in that instance, is that the sources have to demonstrate a reason why this city's version is uniquely more notable than most other cities' versions, precisely because we can't feasibly sustain or maintain a blanket program of articles about every city's local version of the same things.

All of which is why the comparisons are not a distraction; they're exactly the crux of the point. To justify this, we need one of two things: either (a) a reason why New York City's LGBTQ community is of such uniquely greater notability than other cities' LGBTQ communities that this can stand alone, or (b) a reason why a comprehensive program of "list of LGBTQ residents of city", for every city in the world that has a sizable LGBTQ community with notable members, would be desirable. "Is this demonstrably more notable than other cities' versions of the same thing" is a test that we apply to local interest content all the time.

Wikipedia 101D: Don't talk to long-established Wikipedia administrators as if they were newbies who didn't understand how Wikipedia works. HTH. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The logic you employ seems to be like running from Home base to 1st base retrograde through 3rd and 2nd base. Is this an informative and notable article that is reliably sourced? Yes. Done. Pretty simple. On the other hand, trying to censor an entire particular topic that is informative and verifiable and neither illegal nor promotional is absurd and not at all consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. Also, article size

Castncoot (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The logic I employ seems to be like nothing of the sort; it seems to be exactly what it is, which is a perfectly logical and correct summary of exactly what Wikipedia actually does on a lot of topics. For example, when somebody tried to create a list of LGBT activists in Sydney last year, listing every single name they could glean from any source whatsoever of anybody who had ever lived in Sydney and could be characterized as an LGBT rights activist, it was deleted for being too indiscriminate, and not uniquely more important than the hundreds or thousands of similar lists that could be compiled for other cities.

Even size issues are sometimes better dealt with by trimming the list for contextual importance than by spinning it off into its own standalone list: for example, somebody once tried to add a list of guest stars on the TV series Murdoch Mysteries to its article, indiscriminately listing every actor with a Wikipedia article who had ever been on the show at all, and then tried to spin it off into its own article on size grounds. But because a similar list could be compiled for absolutely every television series that exists at all, and there's no reason why having a guest role on that show was more notable than having a guest role on any other show, consensus still killed off the list and landed on trimming the embedded list down to only the guest appearances that could be reliably sourced as important enough to warrant being noted in the main article at all rather than indiscriminately listing every guest actor who had ever been on it. Do we need an indiscriminate list of every LGBTQ person who has ever lived in NYC at all? No. What we need is for the LGBTQ culture in NYC article to restrict itself to mentioning the names of people who can claim historic importance: Ali Forney, sure. Marsha P. Johnson, absolutely. Christine Quinn, by all means. Every single queer actor who ever had a supporting role in a Broadway musical? No.

America-centrism is entirely inappropriate in an international encyclopedia, by the way. "American people are more important than German people because they're American" is not a thing we do. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, a fallacious argument, because the Sydney example WAS indiscriminate, employing mostly non-notable names WITHOUT their own Wikipedia articles. As opposed to that or the Murdoch example, this article is composed strictly with people who BOTH have English Wikipedia articles, AND, I have to say, thanks to admin Risker, who forced me to source each entry with in-line citations confirming both LGBTQ status and the NYC connection, or remove the entry entirely- thereby making this now THE most robust list of LGBT notables of any city LGBT article, most of which don't even contain in-line citations in their relatively small lists, including by the way, the LGBT culture in Berlin article. And who are you to determine that historical context alone is more important than current notable presence? Your time and energy would be far more appropriately spent cleaning up every other LGBT city article rather than looking the other way from those and trying to attack this article for being robustly sourced, if anything. Also, a couple of other things- 1) This list has been growing right under your eyesight over the past several years. Where were you to critique then? Seems hypocritical. 2) Don't try to attribute some sort of "America-centric" blame to this article. That's just flat-out false, and very inappropriate on many levels.

Castncoot (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(1) It's not my job to be omnisciently aware of what every article on Wikipedia is doing; my job is to work on the things I notice, not to psychically divine the existence of problems I haven't seen on articles I haven't looked at. (2) You literally flat-out just said that New York's LGBT community is more important than Berlin's, so exactly what am I supposed to think you meant? I'll give you a free hint: the reason the LGBT culture in Berlin article doesn't have a list of LGBTQ residents of Berlin as long as New York's is not that Berlin doesn't have as many notable LGBTQ residents as New York — if anything they've got more, because Berlin's noteworthy LGBTQ history goes decades further back than NYC's — it's because the Berliners correctly ascertained that a comprehensive list of every single queer person who ever lived in the city isn't a thing the article needed.

And while the notability of Sydney's LGBTQ residents was certainly questioned, the central issue to its deletability was the fact that you could just as easily compile the same list for 10,000 other cities around the world with no reason why 10,000 lists of LGBTQ activists divvied up by city was warranted. And the issue with the Murdoch Mysteries list was also not the base notability of the actors, since it comprised predominantly notable actors with Wikipedia articles — it was the fact that you could compile a comparable list for every TV show that ever existed, without a reason why that would be necessary or valuable. Which is why those aren't false comparisons to this: they illustrate exactly the point that precisely because you can compile a virtually identical list for dozens or hundreds of other cities around the world, you need to show either (a) a compelling reason why keeping dozens or hundreds of "LGBT residents of Specific City" lists would be warranted, or (b) a compelling reason why New York's LGBTQ community is somehow so much more unique than any other city's LGBTQ community that keeping it wouldn't even set a precedent in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a lot of inferring and projecting here, and incorrectly so. I never said that one city's LQBTQ community is any more important any other city's, or that one country's people are more important than another's, as they are all significant. If anything, the facts speak the opposite- I don't want to compare NYC with any other city in this regard- primarily four but also other editors over the past several years have de facto compiled a list of notable LGBTQ New Yorkers, minding our own business, concerned only with the New York article, (trying to) follow Wikipedia's rules and standards for

Castncoot (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Per the requirements of WP:Lists this seems to be perfectly adequate and sustainable. Indeed many cities have notable LGBTQ communities that contribute and shape history and culture. Certainly New York City is prime of them given the LGBTQ history preceding and then including the Stonewall riots, and continued presently. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Gleeanon, who has also contributed to the parent article. And by the way, multiple editors have
  Castncoot (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment on similar lists such as
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Castncoot (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- Not sure why the hostility to this list. Never fail to be impressed, when surfing it, with the immense LGBTQ contribution within the city of New York. It is fascinating -- and quite moving, to be honest -- to see just how integral the LGBTQ community is to NYC. This is worth showcasing.Chrish65 (talk)
This was a
Castncoot (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Since my name has been invoked here, I think I should at least make a comment. Speaking personally, I'm not a fan of wide-ranging lists, but I know that's a preference rather than a policy-based point. I used to say that it would be ridiculous to have a List of redheads - until it was pointed out to me that, not only did we have such a list, but it had twice survived AfD.
This list is far narrower, of course. Every entry has had double-checked reference sources that confirm the subject has self-identified as being LGBT (or whatever variant adds up to "does not have a straight sexual identity"); I can say that with certainty, because I did the checking as a requirement before returning the list to article space in order to comply with BLP. (See extensive notes on the talk page.) Most, but not all, of those references also confirm that the subject is either resident in, or works in, NYC. The need for additional referencing of residency/workplace is something that can be addressed short of an AFD. There are other potential improvements to the list - should its formatting be changed? does it have too many images? should the listing be alphabetical rather than categorical? should it have a different title? - but none of these points are relevant to whether or not the list should exist. I don't know which administrator will be closing this discussion, but I assume that they will be looking closely at policy-based reasons that support deletion, and I'm not sure I see much of that. Risker (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve read the nominator’s rationale several times and I’m afraid I just can’t see any merit in it. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not indiscriminate, but defined and sourced properly. LGBTQ history/ studies is now an area of academic focus at many universities and has even become a mandatory part of some state public school curriculums (elementary and secondary) within the United States. Lists such as this one are useful academic tools for teachers/researchers in New York. Encyclopedias are first and foremost reference tools, and this is a good reference tool for educators and students in this field of study.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a line of reasoning but not a
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I do not see how the language of that policy applies to this article. And for what it's worth, I disagree with the line of reasoning presented as well: this article's content is accurate, verified (i.e. properly sourced), and, IMO, a net positive to the encyclopedia. I also think that the creation of similar articles for Los Angeles and Toronto and London and Berlin and Paris et al. would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I understand where
WP:INDISCRIMINATE gets invoked here. I don't fully agree with it because I think it's no more indiscriminate than any other list that leads to well-cited material, but I understand where it's coming from. As for the rest of this argument, it feels based in slippery slope fallacy, and while I don't want to write off an argument entirely for having logical fallacies, I struggle to see the merit in it.hewhoam areismyself 07:09, 11 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 draftify. Consensus seems to be that she will likely be notable in future but is not yet here. Draftifying and adding a redirect in the mean time seems to be the best solution with regards to

WP:ATD. Regards So Why 09:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Zoë Robins

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

Possible failure of

ping me) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 18:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third in the credits for
WP:NACTOR but sources are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete one reliable source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep She passes the subject specific guideline for actors. Playing a major character such as Nynaeve al'Meara in a television show based on a bestselling book series, as well as being one of the power rangers in 44 episodes of that show, count as notable roles. Dream Focus 02:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There is the New Zealand Herald piece in the article but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she's a Power Ranger, but once Wheel of Time gets some more in-depth interviews and significant coverage beyond cast announcement and "I can't wait to join the series" comments, she should be notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why she was listed in

WP:ANIME? I don't see any anime voice roles. Power Rangers isn't anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoops! I thought that was anime. I have removed it from that listing. Dream Focus 22:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ping me) 23:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:TOOSOON and Draftify, leave a redirect to Power Rangers and tag R with possibilities so people can access the draft. Wheel of Time isn't coming out until 2020. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Draftify per
WP:NACTOR until Wheel of Time actually premieres.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 11 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Girl

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

Fails

ping

}} me in replies) 09:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Please also take a look at

ping}} me in replies) 09:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)ลบ[reply]

Question and Leaning keep - What's the policy on notability for music albums? Certainly there does not need to be
WP:SIGCOV, no? I'll lean keep out of caution here, but may be persuaded (perhaps easily) to change my !vote and rationale. --Doug Mehus (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It's got coverage in Vice, a media organization, here [1] and a MusicBrainz authority record^[2]

References

^ MacDonald, Sarah (17 March 2017). "RALPH is Master And Commander of Her Own Brand of Pop". VICE. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
^ https://musicbrainz.org/artist/d393c207-0e06-4496-a663-1cea48c91176

Both sources are about the artist not the album, which is being discussed here. Thanks,

ping}} me in replies) 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:REFUND apply such that the article can be undeleted and draftified. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it. Wikipedia does not exist as a PR venue to help emerging artists promote themselves — we're an encyclopedia on which making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Accordingly, albums do need to have significant coverage about the album before they qualify for their own standalone articles separately from already being named in the artist's discography. But more than half of the references here are
primary sources which are not support for notability at all (an album is not automatically notable just because you metareference its existence to its availability on iTunes or its entry in an indiscriminate music directory) — and of the four that are actually real media, none of them are actually about the album. Albums are not automatically notable enough for articles just because they exist, but this is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get them over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 6 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. A consensus to Keep post addition of new RS form

(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Julia Thorne

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is who she happens to have been married to. "Second Lady" of a US state is not an "inherently" notable role -- note that neither her predecessor nor her successor have Wikipedia articles at all -- and she and John Kerry had divorced by the time John was a national figure, so the fact that he went on to serve as a US senator and Secretary of State, and unsuccessfully run for president, does not confer an automatic notability freebie on the ex-wife he wasn't even married to anymore.
The article also states that she wrote two books, but fails to source that to the kind of coverage about the books that it would take to get her over our notability standards for writers.
And the sourcing present here is not enough to get her over the "notable because sources exist" bar, either: between the single footnote and the linkfarmed external links, there's a piece of "so what do you think about the fact that your ex-husband is running for president?" human interest journalism in a local interest magazine, a short blurb about the availability of her husband's divorce records (which speaks to his notability, not hers), an obituary, and two

WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to have her own independent notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being married to a prominent politician early on before they are nationally prominent does not make one notable. I would even argue for the deletion of the article on Donald Trump's first wife, except for the fact that he was nationally promient when she was his wife, and some of the ways he is referred to are heavily shaped by her statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some serious cleanup and found several news sources about Thorne which I added to her article. Her obituary was very large and carried in many different, large metropolitan newspapers, indicating that she's a notable person, for one thing! In addition, she comes from a large, wealthy family with historic ties. She was a socialite, which you can see from the 1970 article. She did receive recognition for her first book which led to two articles about that work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage, both during her life and in nationally-distributed obituaries, shows
significant coverage. Her notability was gained beyond her relationship with the politician. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is what counts here and there is a lot of it, on three continents. As the article grows there will be more and more sources surfacing. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 09:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirawdale

)

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

Only reference used is unattainable and almost no information available on Google (other than http://www.mesop.de/tribal-power-making-comeback-in-iraqi-kurdistan-overriding-democracy-law/ which only mentions the tribe once). Semsurî (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Semsurî (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have found this "
Kamal Mirawdily, but more may be needed? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and a snippet here. Mccapra (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a people group acknowledged by the United States government. That's enough to have an article. If we delete it, that's tantamount to participating in erasure.4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 11 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. So Why 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hunting (Dedham)

)

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

Some local notoriety, but simply doesn't pass

WP:GNG. A few trivial mentions in local histories, beyond that, nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep With just a little effort, I was able to add several sources that go well beyond trivial mentions, including several journal articles about him specifically. Additionally, that some of the sources are local history makes no difference as long as they are still
WP:RS. There is plenty more out there.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- It seems that Dedham, Mass. has an enthusiastic local historian contributing to WP. However I see little in this article that makes the subject separately notable. The story of his appointment is covered in First Church and Parish in Dedham. The afterword about a Catholic mass is irrelevant. perhaps merge or redirect to First Church and Parish in Dedham. As the 10th church in Mass, it is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites several
WP:GNG. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.4meter4 (talk) 03:44, 11 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 17:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flight 741 stowaway incident

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

Not particularly noteworthy for a stand alone article, an entry at

List of wheel-well stowaway flights is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - The event passes
WP:SIGCOV exists LA Times, San Francisco Gate, Irish Examiner, The incident was the first death of this kind that had never happened before at SFO (San Francisco International Airport) I will update the article if I have time. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Doesnt appear to be a wide coverage of the events and nothing to indicate it is any more noteworthy than others listed in the

List of wheel-well stowaway flights Not sure what the issue is with age of article, if it is clearly not notable then it should be nominated, wikipedia is not a repository for subjects that may be notable one day if we wait long enough. In reality these events have a local coverage but rarely any continual coverage and fall into the not news area. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. No lasting significance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this has any significance beyond the other events at
List of wheel-well stowaway flights that preclude this content from being included there. Reywas92^Talk

Delete – the event is entirely within the scope of
List of wheel-well stowaway flights; I can't see why a stand-alone article should be warranted to this particular occurrence. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Support its inclusion at
List of wheel-well stowaway flights. - Samf4u (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTNEWS applies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no lasting notability. As per
WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 9 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 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

François Bach

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

Semi-advertorialized

reliable source media coverage about him as a subject, every last one of them is local coverage in his hometown media market, in not inherently notable contexts like doing design work for local bands and local organizations -- which means that it fails to represent a broad enough geographic range of coverage to overcome how bad the rest of the sources are. As always, notability for Wikipedia purposes is not a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of how well the things it says are referenced to reliable sources -- and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lead says he's a professor, but the body doesn't mention it and I can't find any sources that corroborate that claim. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I trimmed a lot of the article, as well as the unsourced professor claim. He does seem to get a lot of coverage but I cannot unravel it all as the article is such an intentional puff job. If kept, TNT is perhaps required. My main reasomn for delte here is the level of intentional puffery and the likelihood that it will be very difficult to create a good encyclopedia article if that continues.
talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'd think that if someone is a notable designer, then there's some (preferably significant) critical assessment of his work in reliable sources. In other words: I expect to see someone discuss his work. But I see nothing of the kind. We're told that he's a product designer, but not which products he designed, that he's a a speaker on topics like mindfulness, but not why he's an expert and that he operated a business and had clients, which is pretty unremarkable. The awards he has won are not notable. He apparently play the base, I guess in band, but we're not told which one. This subject lacks, well, substance. It's all routine stuff, there are thousands of designers, and this one has not made an impact. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Silvertomb. czar 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Of Existence

)

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

Lack of notability. I favour redirecting to the band; this has been undone twice by the article creator. Seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silvertomb as this could be a viable search term and the information about the album could be safely housed within the article on the primary artist. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silvertomb.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 11 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 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional)

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

List of non-notable fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom along with the likewise nominated baronies and earldoms, plus any municipalities, unincorporated communities and census-designated places that may pop up. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 7 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 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Shortland Street

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

List of non-notable fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and entirely
WP:OR by the looks of it. Schwede 66 20:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Entirely
WP:OR, not one reference for it even if they could somehow meet notability requirements. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, completely OR. Reyk _YO! 15:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Ajf773 (talk) 19:26, 7 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 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Artemis Fowl

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

List of non-notable fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just fancruft with no notability, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to https://artemisfowl.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Locations --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely in-universe, primary sourced plot information. Some of these are real-life locations, or fictionalized versions of real/mythological places, but the series-specific versions of them have no non-primary coverage outside of plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 10 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 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MQ Foundation High School

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. High schools are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete we do not keep articles sourced only to the website of the organization. Also, the reasonaing behind "all high schools are notable" really needs rethinking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 10 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Smallwood

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

Page has been created couple of time for a non notable person, clearly fails

WP:RS. Possible sock puppets. Meeanaya (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – Like other "up and coming influencer" spam we see here on Wikipedia, all of the sources except one are manufactured to create the illusion of notability:

[6] Indian website that republishes whatever is sent to them

[7] "Partnered Content"

[8] University newspaper

[9] (republished in Yahoo News) Self-published Indian blog

[10] A fake source made to look like this defunct city newspaper, only publishes submitted promo material from "influencers"

[11] This source appears not to be an actual local newspaper, but it republishes any submitted material.

– Thjarkur (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of note about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject clearly passes the
WP:GNG. Siddhesh.gaikwad (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I did well research before I decided to write an article about a medical student, who shot to fame at such a young age and won two scholarships to attend the Solihull School, which is one of the oldest and top schools in the UK and famous people who attended this school include Will Grigg, Aoife Mannion, Stewart Lee, Frank H. T. Rhodes, Michael Buerk, Frank Foster (cricketer). A complete list of famous people from around the world who educated at Solihull School can be found Solihull school famous alumni, Notable Old Silhillians

Being a medical student myself I know how important and big achievement it is to earn their scholarships.

This guy has been featured in various publications including "CNN-News18" which is India's one of the top leading news channels. Its references are frequently used on Wiki articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhesh.gaikwad (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please share a few sources that are

WP:RS? Meeanaya (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
WP:GNG because all referenced sources are marketing churn and author's argument of notability is illogical with respect to who gets to be in Wikipedia. Lots of people go to good schools where famous people went; some of them have scholarships. Some of them are even a couple of years younger than their classmates. It doesn't mean all those people get to be in an encyclopedia. Good students who went to well-known preparatory schools and go on to professional school are a dime a dozen in the actual real world. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:40, 7 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 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Hall

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very specific fictional minutia, delete as non-notable per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly trivial fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources showing any coverage of this outside of the books themselves. Time to be rid of cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 10 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 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dawson

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this person, besides a passing mention in this lawsuit. Sam Walton (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches bring up a Kim Dawson who is a talent manager in Dallas [12] [13] [14], or a sports psychologist [15] or a local musician [16] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 6 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) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jarid Siegel

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

Does not pass

WP:NFOOTY as he only ever played college soccer. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college soccer in the US is so little folowed, I doubt anyone who only played there has ever been notable, clearly not Siegel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill collegiate soccer player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Individual has only played college football, therefore the article should be deleted since it fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:58, 4 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 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Bonar

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

Can't find any substantial coverage. Subject appears to have had a number of incredibly minor film roles. This interview might be useful, but couldn't find much more. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently, this isn't even a proper stub. Even if someone did write about his acting and writing credits, I am not sure he is notable. See the first paragraph of this for a list of most of his credits. He is currently on the West End in a supporting role in Death of a Salesman, but I see no reviews of his acting or writing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dppedy delete as sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*
WP:NEXIST, he has one decent role at least in the UK TV series Babylon Hotel, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all sources are not reliable except IMDb, which fails the multiple part of GNG. From
^{(open talk page)} 03:10, 10 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. Moving can happen separately from this AFD. So Why 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country Jam Ranch

)

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

I was unable to find

significant non-routine coverage. Of the sources listed, one is the official website and the other doesn't mention this AFAICT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Djflem (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although probably it should be moved/renamed. This is presented as being an article about the ranch space, presumably mostly open land, where the annual Country Jam festival has been held, since 1992 or so, which is the reason the land is notable. Expand to cover the music festival, Country Jam, and maybe move/rename to, say Country Jam festival and Country Jam Ranch. It's a big festival, had its 28th year in 2019.
This KJCT news report reports on $11 million annual impact of the festival, as estimated by a study. This is a valid source, and the study exists somewhere, too.
Example news article about 2017 happenings
There are 28 years of news articles about this.
It is the biggest event in the Western Slope in Colorado, i am pretty sure.

Also, fight Denver which gets all the attention. :( --Doncram (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @

WP:SIGCOV, but the annual music festival held there should definitely have enough RS to pass. An article on the festival could contain all the content about the ranch.4meter4 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I began editing the article to be about the 28 year music festival, to be moved to Country Jam, with just a section on the ranch. It's reasonable to have an article about the festival which started in 1992. See Bonnaroo Music Festival for one other example in Category:Music festivals in the United States, which has subarticles for each of its festivals since it began in 2002: 2002 Bonnaroo Music Festival, ...2016 Bonnaroo Music Festival, etc. Oh, there is Category:Country music festivals in the United States with closer comparables such as similarly named Country Jam USA in Wisconsin. --Doncram (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Country Jam Colorado or Country Jam (Colorado). Likely many more references available for the 29-year-old festival. It's permanent base is clearly worth mention.Djflem (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable event. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Over three weeks now with no evident consensus on what to do with this article. RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award

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

Can find no independent RS coverage. Current sources seem to be press releases or self-published. There is a bit of coverage for one or more similarly named awards which seem to be unrelated (e.g. this story about a Bharat Gaurav award given by a football team to one of its players). AFAICT "Bharat Gaurav" means something like "Pride of India" in Hindi, so it could well be used for several awards. But the exact title, "Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award", gets 0 google news hits, and a small number of results from a web search, mostly wiki mirrors. Also, current content is pretty egregiously promotional. Before recent additions, it was just a 2-sentence stub. Colin M (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but strip back to the December 2018 version before the entire entry criteria were copied in and loads of junky sources added. Judging from who gives the awards and who else is present the awards seem notable. Coverage is modest, but there’s enough to sustain a stub for now. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To my eye, the sources on the earlier stub version are also 'junky', or at least fall short of
  WP:SIGCOV. In order, I see 1) BollywoodHeadlines, which by their 'About Us' section seems to be a blog/user-generated content. 2) Primary source. 3) Photo gallery 4) Literally just a headline. Colin M (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Stubify per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of coverage that shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've stubified it and kept the sources. Going through them now to see if GNG might be met, looks promising based on the national nature of the publications. JamieWhat (talk) 15:15, 3 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 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Party

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

Non-notable political party. Only stood three candidates in one election and the party no longer exists. Most of the sources in the article are either local, trivial mentions or self-published, fails

WP:SIGCOV. No more notable than Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog, who stood in the same election and garnered a similar level of coverage, and whose article was deleted on notability grounds. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Bez (dancer). Making up a name for yourself so you can get 1% of the vote does not make you a real party with notability. All sources are with respect to Bez or plus one local that's more about Farage. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Policies
WP:ATD. Article has reliable sources and notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Just saying "There are Alternative to Deletion" and "I don't like deleting things" is not an argument to keep. Sources merely being reliable is not an argument to keep either when they are brief mentions with respect to its founder. The party was never notable on its own in the first place, its founder is. If you want an
  WP:ATD, about about merge to Bez? Reywas92^Talk 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article meets GNG with RS. It is an easy Keep based on our guidelines and policies. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a political party. No notable electoral success. No notable political legacy. Just existing as a political party does not give automatic credibility to an organisation. doktorb _words^deeds 05:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not independent or reliable. From
^{(open talk page)} 03:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris pour un beefsteak

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

Historical song which doesn't appear to be notable. Perhaps a candidate for transwiki to Wikisource?

talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say it's pretty notable, having its own article on the French Wikipedia. It was one of the most important Socialist songs during the Commune, published by Blanqui's journal, him being one of the most notable Socialists of the 19th century. It's in many collections of 19th century French Socialist songs, and it's been translated to Italian. Antondimak (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I have no opinion yet on whether the song is notable, but I agree that the complete lyrics, in French, belong on Wikisource. There is no benefit to English Wikipedia in having untranslated French lyrics, and we are going to need more than the single reference which is sufficient on French Wikipedia. There may well be sources which can be used to write about the origins, meaning, impact, history, etc, of the song. Antondimak, do you know of any other books or scholarly articles which discuss this song? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly transwikify. This is a quotation not an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - am finding many French citations. I saw one English language citation that stated that this song was "widely sung" during French Commune rebellion and its artist was popular. That makes it notable in my opinion. https://books.google.com/books?id=89KYDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=paris+pour+un+beefsteak&source=bl&ots=9QGo1TWMRf&sig=ACfU3U32MbeEvs8GG1hJkJr4yy1fzEnFLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJyd7Axb_lAhVEnFkKHTS9D_gQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=paris%20pour%20un%20beefsteak&f=false Rogermx (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx: Would it be possible to list some of the French citations for this? The English language citation seems pretty minor to me, and I am not sure that is enough to prove notability by itself, but the French citations may be helpful in further assessing it. Apologies for the question. I just wanted to get more information before casting a vote in any direction. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The English source provided above is not enough to satisfy
WP:GNG. If the French citations can be provided, I will change my vote, but I do not see enough coverage to support notability for this subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The song has its own entry in a French language academic encyclopedia (see [17]). Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If other encyclopedias are covering a topic, we should too.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 11 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 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy

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

Non notable Islamic Academy named after

talk) 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 9 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) 17:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sohini Sastri

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

This is an article about an astrologer. Astrology is a fringe activity, and we usually need really high-quality sources to establish notability. I am not seeing it here, with for example one source saying that she is one of the most renowned Indian astrologers, known for high precision of her forecasts - we are not supposed to take this seriously, no? In addition the article is highly promotional. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keepI see at least three national newspapers discussing this person. Fringe has nothing to do with notability, just how we present it, this person seems moderately notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the articles in national newspapers - these look like reprints of a press release (note the disclaimers at the bottom of the articles) - churnalism rather than significant coverage. The article is also very promotional, and would need to be rewritten with better sources if it is to be retained - I'd be inclined to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i provide all the possible independent reliable resources. Sohini Sastri is a notable personality by her work in India. I don't think these resources are paid. These are independent & reliable resources which are published by news agency. Business Standard, ANI News, Times of India, News Track, Business Standard, Amar Ujala. The above resources are trusted news papers. Samual1213 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Business Standard refs carries the following disclaimer: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.). The ANI News one has This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. This, as well as the nature of the content, is what leads me to believe that these are just press releases/churnalism. The Times of India ref is not coverage of the subject, it's a horoscope written by her. The Amar Ujala and News Track refs give the subject passing mentions - two short sentences in one case, and a single mention in list of names in the other. None of this amounts to significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a
WP:Independent source which documented her biography would help change my mind. jps (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Churnalism isn't coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting an honorary doctorate does not make one notable. Even getting a real doctorate does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a honorary doctorate in a for-profit university which experiences serious financial difficulties.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, lacks reliable sources Heptor (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written in promoting way. --
want to talk? 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Adding to the snow. ∯WBG^converse 06:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a Minnesota winter out here with all that
snow, so let’s add a lil’ more. Anyways, per most of the Delete votes - not notable and not enough significant coverage. Silence | ^Speak./_Find. 21:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Spanish Caravan

Spanish Caravan (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 per the tags added, completely unsourced, an orphan and as it stands shows no signs of notability. First choice (imo) would be to turn it into a redirect to the album. Second would be deletion. Rob van vee 08:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rob van vee 08:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the normal course of action is to redirect or delete such album tracks as non-notable. But, given that that song was performed by The Doors who had very significant amount of coverage (there are many books about the band), there are bound to be sources about the song, for example, a three-paragraph entry here. Even thought I don't think it is a particularly notable song of the band, someone with the inclination to do so can expand it to a full article, therefore I think deletion is not justifiable. The reasonable thing to do would have been to just redirect the article instead of starting an AfD and wait for someone else to expand the article. But given that it is up for an AfD, I'll wait and see if anyone is willing to expand it, otherwise it's a redirect. Hzh (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. I just figured that has been going on for 12 years and obviously, to date no one has yet added reliably sourced, notability determining material or it would still be in the "article". Rob van vee 14:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore the redirect to
talk) 15:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - restore to the Doors' album, as per
WP:NSONG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Waiting for the Sun. This article was created in 2007 when it may have been more acceptable to have stub articles for every song on notable albums by notable bands. Wikipedia has eliminated most of those since the notability rules were tightened up, but this one survived. A redirect to the album is pretty harmless, and I agree that the song article can be resurrected in the future if someone can get reliable sources together. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems right, given that the existing article has no information, but no prejudice against recreating with appropriate sources. I have no doubt that sources exist to expand this into a full article if someone is inclined, and hopefully when someone does they will incorporate information about Krieger's performances with a string quartet. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. czar 20:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Abedin Deepan

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

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

Non-notable as single article per
WP:AUTHOR
. Most of the citations are postmortem and all about his attack and death.

The person is not regarded as an important figure or not widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

The person has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has not been nominated for such an award several times.

The person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

The person has not an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Overall this article is notable for only one event thats why it should be marz to
^{(keep talking)} 07:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^{(keep talking)} 07:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 08:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:AUTHOR.--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:37, 8 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Stairs

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

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

GNG Fail. The claims of being in museum collections all failed verification. A search (web, books, news) found no SIGCOV.
talk) 07:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first nine refs in the article might contribute to notability. Was the nominator able to find any of them? Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is carefully put together (Redacted). I did have a look at references #1 through #9, and a few were available for view on Google Books. They appeared as a design contribution, a brief mention, and a self-penned piece on his project Designers Without Borders, none of which provide
WP:SIGCOV. Curiocurio (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment References to museum collections were not dishonest, just not specific enough. A museum’s library is still part of its collections, particularly where “artists' books” are concerned. Verifiable links to both the Smithsonian and the Museum of Modern Art New York library collections are searchable, and should not be disparaged. Other collections that could not be verified, such as Brooklyn, were deleted. ElzzeWellze (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked but have not answered directly: are you the article subject?
talk) 05:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I initiated the article. I misunderstood it as being “discouraged”, but not “disallowed.” ElzzeWellze (talk) 1:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I read that as you are the article subject. We have rules on this, it is desstrutive to the neutrality of the encyclopedia.
talk) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have a problem with claims like One of the titles, “Boundless,” has been the subject of numerous reviews and anthologies. There are no references to support numerous reviews, and the two anthologies do not have Boundless as their subject; it gets a few lines at most. There are many references to Stair's own work, but there isn't anything to show significant critical reception of his work. For example: a statement like His 2007 essay on Design Observer, “Why Design Won’t Save the World,” a critique of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum’s Design for the Other 90% exhibit, proved controversial. If this is so, I would expect to see a substantial number of articles written in response that can be cited to support the claim. I do not consider museum library holdings equivalent to collections that are exhibited for the purposes of meeting our notability criteria at
WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Thorne, II

Edwin Thorne, II (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)

Bio sourced only to an obituary with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being related to John Kerry by marriage isn't going to do it, and his business career doesn't seem to have attracted any attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a niece who was married to a senator is his closest claim to notability, and that is no claim at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Individual is not notable. Being "family" of a prominent U.S. Senator does not automatically guarantee notability. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:06, 4 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 20:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Express Ship

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Planet Express Ship

Articles for deletion/Planet Express Ship (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Planet Express Ship (3rd nomination)

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

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

There is no indication this fictional spaceship passes
WP:GNG. I can't see any in-depth coverage of it, a few mentions in passing, nothing else. A single sentence from the creator in an interview ([18]) is about as good as it gets here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable per nom, standards have changed since 2007. Re-redirect
Planet Express to Futurama._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fry it, Zapp it, Bend(er) it per nom. All in-universe trivia other than the action figure item. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Earlier AFDs from over a decade ago were closed as Keep based on arguments about how prominent the ship is in the show and that we have articles about other fictional spaceships - arguments that do not pass muster under current AFD standards. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic.TTN (talk) 19:11, 10 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 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lathander

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lathander

Articles for deletion/Lathander (2nd nomination)

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

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

No evidence this fictional character passes
WP:PRIMARY sources (books, games, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to be pure fancruft with no notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. All the sources currently in the article, as well as all the sources given in the previous AfD, are either primary or self-published. A quick web search also shows only primary or self-published sources. Because of this, it's quite obvious that the topic of the page doesn't meet
talk) 10:30, 5 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 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaj Koppel

Nikolaj Koppel (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 what makes him pass
WP:NBIO. Some mentions in passing but no in-depth coverage. (For example of in-depth coverage of a person in the same line of work see [19] which I reviewed just minutes prior to this, and where I found coverage that suggests that radio journalist is notable). This one, however, does not seem to have such coverage. At least, not in English - maybe a Danish speaker can help find some sources to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per hosting of the Eurovision Song Contest, which is an internationally important broadcast. Well sourced and per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. I added the following sources which are independant and mostly contain significant coverage: [20][21][22][23]. Appears to be fairly well known in Denmark, the major claim to notability here would be the Eurovision thing. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I said with Bernadette Ní Ghallchóir, a Eurovision presenter is the face to an international audience, to propose they should be deleted because they are simply just "Doing their Job" or because there is no "in dept coverage" are reasons I find to be an irrelevant excuse. They are entitled to an entry, given the fact they have presented one of the biggest television programmes, worldwide. - Mrluke485 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2019 (GMT)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Barnes (Actor)

Cooper Barnes (Actor) (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)

Way too little information, fails
WP:BASIC, mistake article Cooper Barne should be deleted as well. Magitroopa (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment He has 47 roles per his IMDB profile and began his career as an actor in 2001.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing to IMDb and youtube is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the same thing
Cooper Barnes already RDs to. ミラ P 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – fails
Cooper Barnes have met. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – fails
talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and no redirect Fails NACTOR as stated by others. Proper name for any article is
Cooper Barnes (actor) with the lower case "actor". Article looks to be a copy of AfC rejected Draft:Cooper Barnes (actor). Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, but fully establish Cooper Barnes' page from the redirect to the
List of Henry Danger characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It can't be done – Barnes has received no significant coverage anywhere, and probably also fails
WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 8 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 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dogar Brothers

Dogar Brothers (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)

Promotional article, fails
WP:GNG. No reliable source found. Störm (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find one journal article mentioning the company and its work briefly back from 1957. Other than that I have found nothing in the English language. I suspect that either offline sources (given the company's age) or foreign language sources are the most likely to exist in this content area. Whether they would be in Hindi or Punjabi or Tamil or some other native language I have no idea.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 3 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. The candidate won his election, and is now notable beyond any doubt. Let this be a lesson that the week before an election is not a good time to test a candidate's notability at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cameron (lawyer)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Daniel Cameron (lawyer)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Cameron (lawyer) (2nd nomination)

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:NPOL as an unelected politician, all coverage of him is routine political coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 13:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Greg "Scumbo" Stumbo must be getting worried to have people attack Daniel's page 10 days before the election,OUTRAGEOUS! Let the voters decide!Gemofadeal (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository for people's campaign brochures. People get Wikipedia articles for holding notable political offices, not for running for them, so Daniel Cameron was never entitled to have an article on here in the first place. It is not our job to give "equal time" to every candidate in an election; it is our job to have articles about people who have held office, not people who are "notable" merely for running as candidates. Obviously it will be keepable if he wins, but merely being a candidate was never legitimate grounds for him to already have an article before election day. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--KEEP ; the election is in a couple of weeks, I agree let the voters decide! Plus what has changed since the first nomination for deletion was defeated?SDEditor101 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first nomination was closed as no consensus, not "defeated". And secondly, it's not our job to be a voter information service by keeping articles about unelected candidates for office just because there happens to be an election underway — if a person wouldn't have met our notability standards outside of the election period, then they aren't given a special inclusion freebie just because they're currently campaigning for a political office they haven't already held. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On balance, this should be deleted because nearly all of the significant coverage of the subject is about or through the lens of the
WP:NPOL). --Enos733 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That's fair - I noticed this at NPP when I was clearing mostly association football articles and didn't check to see if it had been previously AfD'd (I assumed it hadn't, it was late) and was so clearly non-notable to me that I went ahead and started this. I didn't realise the "November election" meant ten days from now, thought it was for next year when America is scheduled to vote. Not sure whether to withdraw now... SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't withdraw, because it will just have to be renominated a third time if he loses next week — it's best at this point to leave this discussion open and just let it ride out a relisting for further discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my dilemma. Strong request for a relist for whoever sees this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmer on the back burner. At this point, the election is literally just three or four days after this discussion's first seven-day closure date — and even that's only if there's actually a consensus to assess by this Saturday, which does not look very likely. If it needs more input, this gets relisted — and if it gets relisted just once, then it automatically straddles election day, so that by the time it's actually closable again we'll already know definitively whether he won or lost. If he wins, this will have to be kept; if he loses, it will have to be deleted. So at this point we may as well just let it simmer for the few extra days it'll take for the voters to write the answer for us. By rights, the article should not have survived the first discussion at all, because being a candidate in an election he had not already won is not a legitimate notability claim — but rightly or wrongly, the first discussion was closed no consensus (which is not the same thing as keep), so we are where we are. As soon as we know one way or the other whether he won or lost, I'll revise my vote accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Endorse Bearcat's vote to put the discussion on the back burner. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the election results. Érico (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They just called the election for Cameron. He may not have been notable 3 hours ago, but he now as inherent notability as an elected state attorney general in the US. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:47, 6 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) 03:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European national basketball league rankings

European national basketball league rankings (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)

Original research. Not found FIBA or ULEB official rating. No reliable sources. MadDog (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the current state of the article, I can't determine exactly what this topic is supposed to be about, how to verify it, or how the cited sources relate to the content.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bagumba. It's a confusing mess.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 10 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) 03:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guilds of Ankh-Morpork

Guilds of Ankh-Morpork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable collection of in-universe fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love Discworld but like most fiction most of its elements are not encyclopedic. Readers are better served going to https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Guilds_of_Ankh-Morpork anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Piotrus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as a major fictional element of a famous fiction. It would be too much to make separate aticles on each--this aiso a combination article, as it should be, and therefore justified. But the article i uneven, and need improvment by reducing thedetail of the more expansive sections--any that arejustifiedby their role should have separate articles, as I think one of them does. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's supported by nothing. Plot information can be kept to a minimum simply by summarizing it to the barest possible extent while retaining necessary context or simply not including it. Your criteria for inclusion is completely subjective, allowing for literally any fictional minutia to be catalogued. TTN (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here has any importance outside the books mentioned. There is not broad and well based coverage enough to justify this article. This is not Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely in-universe plot summaries, sourced to nothing but the Discworld books. Searching for additional sources also only results in various official Discworld books, with no independent sources discussing the concept in-depth. Rorshacma (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 10 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) 03:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religions of the Discworld

Religions of the Discworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable collection of in-universe fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Any interested reader is better directed to https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Religions_of_the_Discworld --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Non-notable fiction cruft and minutia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to clear out all this disc world cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like most of these other crufty Discworld articles, the information is comprised of only primary-source plot information. Searching for sources only brings up the usual combination of fansites and official Discworld products, neither of which can establish notability on the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_3&oldid=1142613145"

[1] MacDonald, Sarah (17 March 2017). "RALPH is Master And Commander of Her Own Brand of Pop". VICE. Retrieved 30 October 2019.

[2] ttps://musicbrainz.org/artist/d393c207-0e06-4496-a663-1cea48c91176

[2]