Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday April 30 (Tue) April 29 (Mon) April 28 (Sun) More...

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

< 23 October	25 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurralla Rajyam

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

Film, which does not indicate its importance. There are no reliable source for this film to establish its notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable sources can be found on various search engines and websites (for example IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes)to prove that this exists. Although you may say that this is found on Amazon and Dailymotion, it is not "reliable" according to the definition on
WP:CITE.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references in the article nor can I find any. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't have enough reliable source. Barca (talk) 16:25, 30 October 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 result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tondino

AfDs for this article:

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. This is the first time I have seen the "collections" section used to list the museums that have refused the artist's work rather than collected it. I think that part tends to reinforce the argument for him being non notable. Previously deleted by consensus in 2007.

talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable artist who does not meet WP criteria
WP:ARTIST. All I could find was social media sites and blogs, nothing of substance. Netherzone (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Following comment pasted from the AFD talk page.
talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

--What should we do when articles or newspaper reviews are no longer available online or when the newspapers no longer exist?Booboo the dog (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the 'Cite news' template for citing offline newspapers sources. As a matter of policy offline sources are equal to online sources. Curiocurio (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Curiocurio Booboo the dog (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following up on my delete !vote above - The article was created by an SPA with an obvious COI, and has been heavily edited by another SPA, both of whom are focused on articles related to Tondino and his father. The article is
WP:PROMO, just like the one that was deleted some years ago. Fails NARTIST on all four points: 1) they are NOT regarded as an important figure, nor are they widely cited by peers or successors; 2) They are NOT known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3)They have NOT played a major role in creating a significant or well known work or collective body of work, nor are they the primary subject of an independent and notable work, nor multiple independent books, articles reviews that cover them in a significant way; 4) Their work is NOT a significant monument, substantial part of a significant exhibition (like solo shows at museums), they have not won significant critical attention, nor are they in permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. I could not verify any of the collections listed in the article (which are private, family members, or corporate). The museums he attempted to donate his work to did not accept it for their collections. Just because someone is an artist and has had a few shows or screenings and a couple mentions in the press, is not enough to merit an encyclopedia article. WP is not a LinkedIn equivalent. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment maybe we should be loosening the guidelines somewhat? Things that appear true: 1) this artist has had representation in reasonably significant Montreal Galleries (Kastel, Dominion); 2) This artist's work has been included in and has sold in significant Canadian Auction houses (Heffel, Levis, Ritchie); 3) this artist has had public shows (Cultural centres) Booboo the dog (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems this is the 3rd time this article has been up for deletion: the 2007 nomination states that the article was "Prodded, deleted and recreated" - making this one the 3rd nomination. It may be best to salt. As to the list above of "things that appear true": 1) the exhibitions are either unverifiable or not significant: Galerie Kastel does not list him as one of their "exhibited artists, nor does Dominion; Galerie 1225 is a "gallery" in a wine bar ~~on the McGill Univ. campus~~ where alumni can show their work (he is an alum); Maxwell Haus Studios & Centre St Ambroise seems to be for-rent studios and a brew pub; Nelligan is a hotel and shops; Studio St-Ambroise seem to be studios for-rent by-the-day where anyone could put up a show. I was unable to verify the Salon de la Plasticas Mexicanos exhibition. 2) works sold at auction do not establish notability, just that the artist sold some work, which is what hundreds of thousands of artists do. 3) See item 1 above. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, sorry for the extra work I put you through Booboo the dog (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Problem I checked and many of your last claims Netherzone are actually untrue unfortunately. For example, Gallery 1225 was never affiliated with McGill and the owner reopened under the name NuEdge. This artist did have an exhibition in 2002 at Kastel Gallery and the gallery closed in 2006. While I am know longer certain this artist is notable by wiki guidelines, your research is problematic. Perhaps a Montrealer could weigh in here? Booboo the dog (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will weigh in to say that this artist is not notable by our standards, and that this long discussion of such an extremely minor artist is a waste of editor time. Good?

talk) 10:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough but I was hoping for somebody other than you or Netherzone. I also commend you on some really exceptional work for women artists :-) Booboo the dog (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been reorganizing this page. I have found a few interesting items offline that I will try to organize correctly. Thank you! Booboo the dog (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, I was unable to find anything more than small articles in secondary or regional newspapers (I hope that doesn't offend anyone). Nothing confirms that his work has been collected by important galleries or owners of galleries. Also, thank you for your help. It's been very educational. Booboo the dog (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments by article creator with direct COI
Comment Hello, I created this article. I admit it may have been a mistake but I revealed that I was the major contributor to it by signing my first name. I also created the article on Gentile Tondino who clearly passes (He had a show at the MMFA, and is in a few museums. Tristan Tondino does not pass 3 of the 4 guidelines but the 4th is ambiguous. I have first-hand knowledge that he did have exhibitions at Kastel, at Galerie 1225, and that his work was in Dominion Gallery until it closed. The last curator of Dominion wrote an article describing his acceptance in the Gallery, their first meeting, and the quality of his work. Tondino's Kastel show was very large (70 paintings) half of which sold and the rest were purchased by the owners Paul Kastel and Anthony Nevin. I'm not sure whether these galleries are significant enough, but I am definitely going to improve the Paul Kastel entry because he really did work hard to promote the work of many excellent painters (e.g., Fritz Brandtner, Stanley Cosgrove, Henry Wanton Jones, John Little and the Weiselberg sisters, Rose and Fanny, and many younger painters like Raphael Monpetit, Tristan Tondino, and well... my work too). From a contemporary art perspective, it's hard to know what to do with more traditional galleries. And to be fair, Tondino is all over the place in terms of style. He did many Montreal scenes, tiny paintings of birds, Fauve-ist Plein air paintings of Italy, textual works, multiple versions of the 5 dollar project one of which did sell at auction to an unknown buyer in Empire Auction and the proceeds were given to TWKF. He has done very large paintings on construction site plywood barriers and has been attempting to donate self-referential works (Un Villain Tableau, A Painting No One Wants; A Forgery) to museums and I have a letter from the MMFA's outstanding Cheif curator who played along with the process. These are the facts. Also, because he is a multi-media artist it's not clear what the article should be focusing on. We did have two films open at the Montreal World Film Festival and this can be found online in lists other than IMDB. My general point is that while there are warnings about conflict of interest we should nonetheless focus on facts. There is a lot of material around. Finally, and I think most importantly, we have lost many interesting newspapers to the digital revolution (e.g., The Montreal Mirror, The Hour) and I think we need to be vigilant during this transition to avoid losing historically significant or interesting material. I would request, therefore, that either the article be preserved on my page until it is actually ready (I will be more detailed next time and make sure the links to important items can be found online) or that the deletion request be terminated and I will work on making certain the items are available. JOSBRU (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply ] I admitted to knowing the artist very well... and his father... what else do you need? JOSBRU (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] What we need is to have neutral contributors, and you are not one. talk) 18:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply ] I agree to a certain extent (I'm a terrible editor and don't know how to claim on the talk page that I have a conflict) but still maintain that the issue ultimately is objectivity. I want the two pages to stay but if this one goes because I haven't done this correctly then I understand and apologize JOSBRU (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] WP:EXTERNALREL states: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial — can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse." You don't seem to be here to help create an encyclopedia, but rather, solely to promote Tondino and his investors and salespeople. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

comments by article creator with direct COI

Comment Hello, I created this article. I admit it may have been a mistake but I revealed that I was the major contributor to it by signing my first name. I also created the article on Gentile Tondino who clearly passes (He had a show at the MMFA, and is in a few museums. Tristan Tondino does not pass 3 of the 4 guidelines but the 4th is ambiguous. I have first-hand knowledge that he did have exhibitions at Kastel, at Galerie 1225, and that his work was in Dominion Gallery until it closed. The last curator of Dominion wrote an article describing his acceptance in the Gallery, their first meeting, and the quality of his work. Tondino's Kastel show was very large (70 paintings) half of which sold and the rest were purchased by the owners Paul Kastel and Anthony Nevin. I'm not sure whether these galleries are significant enough, but I am definitely going to improve the Paul Kastel entry because he really did work hard to promote the work of many excellent painters (e.g., Fritz Brandtner, Stanley Cosgrove, Henry Wanton Jones, John Little and the Weiselberg sisters, Rose and Fanny, and many younger painters like Raphael Monpetit, Tristan Tondino, and well... my work too). From a contemporary art perspective, it's hard to know what to do with more traditional galleries. And to be fair, Tondino is all over the place in terms of style. He did many Montreal scenes, tiny paintings of birds, Fauve-ist Plein air paintings of Italy, textual works, multiple versions of the 5 dollar project one of which did sell at auction to an unknown buyer in Empire Auction and the proceeds were given to TWKF. He has done very large paintings on construction site plywood barriers and has been attempting to donate self-referential works (Un Villain Tableau, A Painting No One Wants; A Forgery) to museums and I have a letter from the MMFA's outstanding Cheif curator who played along with the process. These are the facts. Also, because he is a multi-media artist it's not clear what the article should be focusing on. We did have two films open at the Montreal World Film Festival and this can be found online in lists other than IMDB. My general point is that while there are warnings about conflict of interest we should nonetheless focus on facts. There is a lot of material around. Finally, and I think most importantly, we have lost many interesting newspapers to the digital revolution (e.g., The Montreal Mirror, The Hour) and I think we need to be vigilant during this transition to avoid losing historically significant or interesting material. I would request, therefore, that either the article be preserved on my page until it is actually ready (I will be more detailed next time and make sure the links to important items can be found online) or that the deletion request be terminated and I will work on making certain the items are available. JOSBRU (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I admitted to knowing the artist very well... and his father... what else do you need? JOSBRU (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is to have neutral contributors, and you are not one.

talk) 18:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree to a certain extent (I'm a terrible editor and don't know how to claim on the talk page that I have a conflict) but still maintain that the issue ultimately is objectivity. I want the two pages to stay but if this one goes because I haven't done this correctly then I understand and apologize JOSBRU (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXTERNALREL states: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial — can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse." You don't seem to be here to help create an encyclopedia, but rather, solely to promote Tondino and his investors and salespeople. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswaram Temple

AfDs for this article:

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

Very touristy, nearly incomprehensible, I believe it'd need a full rewrite to become a decent article at this point. Just a tangled mess in general.

talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the references are unreliable, primary sources, or non-references, including YouTube, Google Maps, Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, videos, and tourist brochures. Much of the article is incomprehensible and contains
marketing buzzspeak
. The history is unverified and appears to be mythological.
- - There was a previous AFD four years ago which was closed as No Consensus, basically due to a lack of participation. The article has not improved substantially in four years even if more questionable sources have been added. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editor does not appear to understand wikipedia policy either. They are protesting the deletion on their talk page. Linking here for note.
talk) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Extra note: I just realised the editor may actually be engaging in paid editing. See my note
talk) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TNT. I actually think there's an outside chance that this is a notable topic. The lingam received some attention (see here from the Times of India). Assuming in good faith that at least one or two of the poorly-formatted print sources referenced in the current article actually has something germane to say about the temple in general (but see below), there's probably enough to build a legitimate article. What we have here, however, isn't it, and isn't salvageable. It conflates mythology and doctrine with history, is so dubiously referenced as to render any of the text questionable, and has significant passages that are on the whole barely comprehensible. Also, I believe that at least some of the print sources are being used in ways that do not support the provided claims; Glimpses of Architecture in Kerala Temples and Palaces is available via Google's frustrating Snippet View, but that's enough to determine that the word "Maheswaram" does not appear in the text; I suspect the book actually describes an architectural style, which is then attributed to this temple here via original research. And so for those several reasons, even if the temple is a notable topic, this article is so badly non-compliant that we're better off without it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:29, 25 October 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 result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Channel

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

One source, no indication of notability, therefore failing

ABC, so I may have missed something. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to think they started a test feed for investment, but it (and likely as the article source said, big name players launching their own competitors) doomed the channel as a going concern before it ever launched, so this was a test network that didn't get out of the testing stage. chatter) 00:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per reasons mentioned above.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Reeb

Lloyd Reeb (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)

Biography with no claim of notability, that relies too much on primary sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The username of the editor that created this article,
WP:COI. Purely promotional article for a non-notable public speaker. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- Another one-man ministry. I might be more convinced if Halftime Institute had a WP page. That is apart from COI issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 27 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Osgerby

Daniel Osgerby (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 apparent notability. Provides sources do not establish any notability whatsoever. Seems to fail
WP:GNG ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Add: also, created by User:Wildfirestudios, which appears to be a single purpose promotional account. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be
WP:NACTOR is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus here. While notification of affected projects is a courtesy it is not a requirement and these nominations did appear in the project's article alerts. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek planets (A–B)

List of Star Trek planets (A–B) (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)

Star Trek minutia (aka fancruft). ~~This is a test case for the rest of the alphabetical lists.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the snowy consensus, I'm nominating the rest of the alphabet:
List of Star Trek planets (C–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (G–L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (M–Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (R–S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Trek planets (T–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of these lists are unnecessary,
WP:GNG failing laundry lists of pure minutia. There is nothing for which these lists can be used in terms of allowing for more context by linking from another article. The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location. TTN (talk
)

Delete all the new additions, same reasoning. TTN (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'keep breakout list of notable plot element of series. Exists because of size of parent articles. Each list element needn't be individually notable. List well defined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the topic of "Star Trek Planets" notable? If not, then that argument can be used for literally any list of fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's a key plot element. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely subjective, and it doesn't go against the fact that such a loose reason for splitting a list opens up literally any list. "These weapons are key elements of this RPG." "These special attacks are key elements of this anime." etc. TTN (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fancruft with no context,
WP:ALLPLOT. There definitely don't seem to be enough notable planets in Star Trek to merit a large number of lists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This list is nothing but trivial
WP:PLOT information, sourced only to the episodes themselves. A singular, well sourced list or article on the actual notable planets in the franchise (i.e. Vulcan, Qo'Nos, etc.) would make sense. A listing of the hundreds of planets that have been mentioned throughout the franchise's fifty year history, sourced to nothing but the episodes themselves, is nothing but cruft. And while there are sources out there that discuss the fictional planets of the franchise, they are, again, pretty much limited to the handful of actually notable examples, not the countless number contained in these lists that had no bearing on the plot of even a single episode and were mentioned off hand. Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to be clear, as my recommendation was posted before the remainder of the lists were added, I do fully support deleting all of them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. This kind of list is more suited for a Star Trek-focused wiki than Wikipedia. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these as purely all-plot stuff, not notable at all.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single planet that is blue linked that has its own article for Star Trek and not a real location? Bajor links to Bajoran, and the other links I clicked to are just real life locations. Are the other lists like this also? If there is enough legitimate blue links from all of them combined, then merge them together. Dream Focus 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, no. The closest we have is the link to "Earth" linking to the Star Trek segment of the Earth in science fiction article, and Vulcan, as the name of the planet and native species are the same, so the target article discusses both. The remaining blue links are either to the real-life locations, or to the species that inhabits them (i.e. Qo'Nos linking to Klingon). Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of these should've been nominated at once, since its the same situation in all of them. Not a single article exist for any planet, only for the notable species, then delete them all. Dream Focus 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are now nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion.
Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Sadly these are all about plot stuff so there is no convincing reason to keep these pages. All of the notable content almost certainly exists already on other Star Trek articles.
WP:ALLPLOT. Ceosad (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per others. On a related note, see this. ミラ P 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And there go the planets!! Govvy (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above , there is nothing new and notable with this article Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and object to any continuation or close to this attempt per not notifying the Star Trek and Science Fiction Wikiprojects for response and per not notifying the list's creator outside of the A-B article. Keep per well sourced and educational list and per
WP:IGNOREALLRULES as this list is an exceptional resource for the encyclopedia and keeping it maintains the encyclopedia's Star Trek collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've notified the wikiprojects and ask for a relisting for responses, if any. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like pointless wikilawyering. There is no need to notify projects, and notifying creators is a curtesy. How many are even still active? TTN (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A need to notify the Star Trek wikiproject about a removal discussion of six major articles seems obvious and important for the credibility of finalizing such a mass removal. Notifying projects is the good faith and fair way to go with something like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nicety, but not a necessity. That's especially true given that it looks to be a fairly inactive project, and it can be assumed anyone truly active in the project would have these pages on their radar given the relatively low number of articles on the topic compared to mass Wikiprojects. It seems like you're trying to enforce pointless bureaucracy due to your own personal interest in the topic. TTN (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the topic, and I also don't like the fact that this massive collection of material on the subject is being quickly jettisoned without alerting others who may like the topic. The comments about me obscure the actual target - the collection of Star Trek planets material which is likely the best such collection on the internet and which, by the way, seems quite encyclopedia worthy. Hopefully the closer will consider the Ignore the Rules direction to maintain the encyclopedia which, in a real way, asks us to maintain specific and unique articles in a topic collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only found out about it by seeing the WikiProject notification; I watch the project talk page, but not these lists. It is highly desirable to notify projects. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above.
talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as mostly not notable, but handle incoming redirects & links with care rather than simply deleting them all. Some could usefully be redirected to episode articles instead, in cases where a location made a worthwhile connection between multiple episodes. As TTN stated above, "The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location" but, unless done by an admin, that needs to be done before deletion (or by temporarily pasting a copy into WikiProject space). Note: I have just removed links to these sub-lists from Template:Star Trek so that we can see what intentional incoming links remain. – Fayenatic London 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too many lists, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as mostly not notable. Rollidan (talk) 20:42, 31 October 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) 19:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keshab Dahal

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

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

Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL. There are quite a few articles he's published in national newspapers, or at least their online versions, but I could find none that was published about him, not even trivial coverage. Spam factory as of now, tried to clean it up myself but gave up after I couldn't find RS to replace it with. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable candidate from an article creator with a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sources can be found, just a random person from a dissolved political party. Can't find him in the national newspapers. No idea why this exists. --WikiAviator (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on the central organizing committee of a small political party is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough
WP:GNG — but the article presents no credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons. You don't make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to his own writing as technical verification that it exists, you make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to journalism (book reviews, news articles, etc.) written by other people as evidence that media paid independent third party attention to his writing. But that's not what the "sources" here are. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is no reliable source from this article that could prove it's notability. Barca (talk) 16:53, 30 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoli Olympitis

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

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

I don't see any third-party sources that meet
WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The user who removed the prod stated in one of their (only two) edits that they were adding a link and "multiple citations", but actually did not.[1] I don't believe this is an attempt to deceive, but rather a sign of a new user perplexed by our requirements. Even so, they have added nothing to the purpose, and I don't see any indication of notability. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 24 October 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 Beast Wars: Transformers. RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waspinator

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

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers - I'm not finding anything that goes much in depth on the character that would support an independent article - mostly just plot summaries or announcements/descriptions of toys based on him. However, as a major character of a notable cartoon, it would make sense to redirect to the main article. And while there have been other incarnations of the character, the Beast Wars version was the original and, by far, the most well known. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. The target makes more sense than
List of Decepticons ミラ P 02:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers, if this is the most well known series then a redirect makes sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. "Why universe hate Waspinator?" Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers by the rationale provided above. Utopes (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers, I did not find anything new for a stand alone article Alex-h (talk) 11:35, 29 October 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 Daystar affiliates#Alabama. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WBUN-CA

WBUN-CA (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)

LPTV station doesn't meet
notability. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to
chatter) 00:07, 25 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 13:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open Carbon World

Open Carbon World (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 working references. May no longer exist, Rathfelder (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can find no indication this still exists, plus the article as written reads like a promo. Home Lander (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't show enough coverage to support it's notability. Barca (talk) 00:46, 30 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Pagani

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

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

Fails
ping}} me in replies) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Alice deserves this page due to the successful show Baby on Netflix she stars in and the 1.1m followers she currently has on instagram, it also informs people about her. Also she is listed on the italian wiki but this is obviously in Italian and not readable by the English audience to the show. Sdurward (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@
matt91486 (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- There is more substantial Italian language coverage, with large features in both Vanity Fair and Vogue. Other sources are [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. That's just the first five pages of google results.
matt91486 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage in Italian sources as detailed above and others such as Italian Cosmopolitan where she was featured in an article and the front cover, which shows that
WP:GNG has been passed and there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - ever filtering out some non-independent content from the interviews, there is still plenty available to show notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matt91486. Passes
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 1 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. John Pack Lambert's argument is compelling in light of
WP:V: BLPs without reliable sources must be deleted. Sandstein 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Heath Miller (actor)

Heath Miller (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)

No indication of notability for this actor. It's is also unsourced, which isn't surprising to me at all. Pahiy (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had a reasonable stage career after his major role in Ship to Shore. Primary source. Significant role in a touring production of X-Stacy as documented in Kent, Melissa (19 March 2003), "Seeking ecstasy.", The West Australian. This production of Thieving Boy and Like Stars In My Hands was notable, see the reviews + [8], he had major role in the former. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in one TV series and a number of theatre productions as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The article doesn't give any assertion of notability (or information about him beyond his name and profession and location and birth). It's not even a stub at this point. Unless somebody steps in now and makes a credible stub out of the article, there's nothing here of value to keep.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete having only IMDb as a source should be a stanrdard speedy delete cause. To add to the problems, this article mentions no roles ever. To be notable we need to identify and source multiple roles that are significant and were in notable productions. 0 roles can not fulfill this criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 2 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. Sandstein 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McKenzie

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

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

No indication of notability. Just like her Ship To Shore costar Heath Miller, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage about her in any news outlets. Pahiy (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
WP:NACTOR with roles. These got reviewed in mainstream newspapers, [9] (reasonably high billing [10]), [11], [12]. Primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No sources about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme, and more sources can be added, verifying her roles and reviewing her performances, including in other productions not already included. I have started making a table of the stage performances and will add to the article when it's more complete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is being improved with extra reliable sources references and supported content so that deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "roles" alone do not make someone notable, they need to be significant roles in notable productions, a threshold not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

prominent theatre roles count and so the threshold is met imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says that prominent theatre roles qualify. Otherwise everybody who had ever played Lady Bracknell in an amateur dramatics production of The Importance of Being Earnest would merit a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
WP:NACTOR. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Emphasis added. No it doesn't extend to any amateur dramatics production, it needs to be a notable production. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment. The first clue I had that something isn't right with the article is that I couldn't find the existence of the Australian National Theatre, but I did find a newspaper article from 2015 lamenting that no such theatre organization yet exists (or has ever existed) in Australia. In short, without some more compelling evidence (ie better sourcing), I don't think
WP:NACTOR in provable yet in this article.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep I solved the mystery. Please see the updates I made to the article. It looks like "Australia National Theatre Live" should have been the title. It means she was in nationally televised productions from the Perth playhouse. I also discovered she's won and been nominated for some of Australia's major theatre awards (see here). Those nominations indicate notability to me. The article still needs better sourcing, but a tag would be more appropriate than deletion giving the awards.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:4meter4, I would suggest it's a third thing. See the list of productions from the mimma link
Godspell, Chicago, Jack The Ripper Show, On Our Selection, A Chorus of Disapproval, Company and Charity Barnum in Barnum (National Theatre Co).

Compare to what was in the wiki page
Godspell, Chicago, The Jack the Ripper Show, On Our Selection, A Chorus of Disapproval, Company and Barnum for the Australian National Theatre Company.

Someone editing the wikipedia page added the "Australian" [13]. The actual mob is National Theatre Inc over time called Perth Repertory Club, The National Theatre of Western Australia Inc and The National Theatre Company Inc. See [14]. Also an extra production for them, Sisterly Feelings, not yet listed can be seen here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the improvements to the article. Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Duffbeerforme finds that she has been reviewed for her major roles and meets the requirements for actors. Dream Focus 02:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other articles on stage productions she has been in. For The Crucible - [15].For Sand - [16], [17], [18], "Done and dusted: Can we survive?", The West Australian, 18 June 2014. For Face to Face - Naglazas, Mark (9 August 2004), "Human face of conflict", The West Australian. For Turning - Christmass, Pip (10 November 2008), "Below-par but Turning scores", The West Australian + Borlaug, Odna (4 March 2008), "Turning to earthy look at family life", Western Suburbs Weekly. I make no claim on significance of roles without further investigation. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Edge Inc.

Salt Edge Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find a single mention of this company in an independant reliable source (
WP:ORGCRIT
). The cited sources are primary sources and press releases. One Moldovan newspaper has briefly mentioned one of their daughter projects, "Fentury".
Article was originally created in May by a paid editor, current author claims not to be paid.
– Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am respecting that you analized the sources, however, I might say with the confedence that I included the viable sources (contrary, there is only one quoted from a magazine). I followed all the other encyclopedia examples such as
WP:RS. --Sabrina.ok (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and consider
WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as no RS can be found. Self-promotional article with COI in doubt.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that the current format of the article is highly superior to the previous one. The content of the article neutral, without any promotion and advertisement. I agree that there are few viable sources (by the way, I would like to add some sources however as I see I cannot intervine). As it was said before, I consulted the other articles such as:
FEXCO, CogitalGroup, Acorns (company) and many others. I would like to state the quality of the above-mentioned articles, sometimes, is shoddy. Thus, I am requesting to be removed the label to develop this article further, and I wish to be involved in developing of the other articles that have the similar problems. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Written like an an advertisement. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The nominator's explanation is comprehensive and sound. Per Thjarkur, Rosguill, and Doug Mehus. See also my comments earlier this month at User talk:Athaenara#Salt Edge Inc.* – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Now User talk:Athaenara/Archive 13#Salt Edge Inc.)* – Athaenara ✉ 20:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I start from the idea that the related company is not a recently established. They are people, which are certainly interested to be informed in this regard. From my side, I understand your feedback to this article. I am also an old reader of the encyclopedia, which has led me to participate with possible contributions. Like all of us, those who contribute to the development of the platform, I also respect my time to write something of good quality. As for the sources, I am assuring you that they will be updated in due course. I carefully analyzed the information placed before the article was proposed to be deleted and after. I disagree that it is an advertisement, I respected Wikipedia policies. I would be really interested to understand the existing logic related to the keeping of the articles before created, which however, do not correspond to the Wikipedia rules, and moreover, which clearly have the sense of promotion and publicity, in comparison with the new contributions, which are more qualitative both in providing the information and policies protection, are proposed to be deleted.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS (I require at least 3, and preferably, 5) exist to write more than a stub-class article. You might consider writing your article on Everipedia, which takes more of an inclusionist philosophy, or on Fandom. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for understanding, in fact, from the very beginning I keen on doing the text compliant with the
WP:RS. Then, I identified more sources that meets that policy. Moreover, it should be considered that this is a developing company and the viable sources will appear for sure. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:CORPDEPTH. Hope this helps. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Articles for Creation process, which helps to protect against future AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:06, 28 October 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. Based on comments in the discussion, I will not delete any of the redirects pointing to this page; any interested editor(s) can repoint them to an appropriate new target. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in The Saga of Seven Suns

List of planets in The Saga of Seven Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another fancruft list of something planets. While one source is a review, we need a second review to satisfy GNG, not the book. ミラ P 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A review of a single book in the series is absolutely worthless in support of an in-universe list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Saga of Seven Suns. There appear to be reviews for all the books in the series there, but mentions of these many planets are minimal so adding the citations here will still not establish notability.— TAnthony^Talk 19:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, in-universe plot information that belongs elsewhere. TTN (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I do not think a redirect would be helpful as I cannot imagine that someone would type this out as a search term.
Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

My main concern is that there are numerous redirects to this list, which would be corrected by bot if this list is redirected (to avoid double redirects). Of course, if deletion is really preferred I suppose I can use AWB to fix all the redirects manually.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non-notable and entirely fancruft..._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 28 October 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) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajni KC

Rajni KC (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)

(Alternate speling of "Rajani KC": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing but routine coverage on the recent candidacy, it's not even a major party. Nothing suggesting the subject yet meets GNG, NPROF or NPOL, in english or Nepali sources. Quite certainly a PR campaign aimed at the election (created by a COI editor). Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this makes no other strong claim that she has any preexisting notability for other reasons: neither being deputy administrator of a university, nor being on her political party's organizing committee, are instant notability freebies that would exempt a person from having to have a lot more
reliable source media coverage than just a couple of short blurbs verifying and reverifying and rereverifying her unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Bearcat, unsuccessful-- the candidacy is for a new election, a seat made vacant prematurely, not that it makes a difference to the point. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She was "deputy administrator" of Pokhara University. That is a title to sounds to me like it could be something quite high up in faculty (potentially indicating notbability), or it could be very minor. I don't know anything about how Nepali universities are organized, but it seems like something worth looking into. LadyofShalott 15:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LadyofShalott, it looks like she was a deputy administrator at the Uni. This list is probably of the ones that have NPROF claims, while this list looks like the kind she might have belonged to. I am quite certain the position doesn't accord her inherent notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 13:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:09, 29 October 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 Withdrawn and renominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demographics and culture of Bhat (2nd nomination) Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics and culture of Bhat

WITHDRAWN

Doing proposed deletion to save time of community. --
want to talk? 04:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion 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.

Demographics and culture of Bhat (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 notable to have separate article. Most of the information is unsourced and references are laughable. Books of Tarla Dalal is used as references which doesn’t mention the subject even
want to talk? 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 12:52, 24 October 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 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. Beyond the nominator, who argues for deletion, there is someone with a redirect !vote who also suggests the topic is notable. Two subsequent editors then seem to focus on process, accepting this redirect !vote's assessment of notability, rather than the specifics of this article and its notability (or lack there of). After two relisting with no further discussion there has thus been no further discussion and so there's not really a consensus to be had here. This close leaves open the opportunity for someone to improve the article and demonstrate its notability, redirect it to a valid target, or renominate it for deletion but for now the status quo remains. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300 (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)

Sourcing is merely routine, directory-type sources that don't prove
WP:SIGCOV. Also nominating 2018 NextEra Energy Resources 250, 2018 Active Pest Control 200 and 2018 Rinnai 250 for the same reason. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the
NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and the 2018 NASCAR Xfinity Series respectively. These races are notable but in the state that its currently in and the best that can probably be done is a redirect to those series pages. If someone recreate those pages then they would be welcome to do so. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don't understand the rush to delete. The page was prodded 3 hours after it was created, and then brought to AfD a day later. It doesn't seem to have had any page curation tags placed on it before that. The Talk page was created by the prodding editor - it has no Wikiprojects on it. Why not add Wikiprojects to the talk page and add tags to the article that it needs better sourcing? If the races are notable, per
WP:NPOSSIBLE ("before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search"), it would surely be better to allow other editors to improve the articles than to delete or redirect them. A quick search of Google News and Newspapers.com shows that there was coverage. I have no interest in car races, but I am sure that there are editors who do, who could improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per RebeccaGreen. A lot of effort has gone into creating this article and it is discouraging to the new editor to have it and the other articles he has written treated in this way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 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. There is no consensus for the deletion of this article, after extended time for discussion. Opinions may vary as to whether coverage of the receipt of an award or honor constitutes coverage of the award or honor. bd2412 T 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International 2019

Miss Asia Pacific International 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about the 2019 edition of a beauty pageant that in itself is non-notable, sourced only to a personal blog (pageantopolis.com) and the pageant's own website. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although I agree with nominator that the current sourcing is horrible, in the interest of not perpetuating systemic bias, I'm postponing my !vote until I see if another editor comes up with sources we did not find. Maybe there are regional or national media in a language other than English. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject. Wide media coverage. Includes reliable references. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wide media coverage" where, please? Just stating this then leaving the AfD debate isn't persuasive. Also note that "It's of interest around the globe" is the very first example of an argument to avoid in deletion debates under
WP:FARAWAY. – Bri.public (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is sufficient local media coverage of this event and the personal blogs may be removed and be replaced by the references from newspapers. This is notable worthy. Only a clean-up will do. I can do it but I am going to bed now. Leaning to weak keep vote. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator clearly did not follow
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Not really. The global news outlets, e.g. China (cite #1) and Vietnam (cite #7), are covering individual people, not the pageant per se. And we can ignore pageantopolis.com (cite #5 and #6) as having no evidence that it is a RS – in fact it is
WP:DIVERSE
.

Finally, the biggest problem here is
WP:PERSISTENCE, which is extremely unlikely to be met for an edition of an annual pageant – the three potential RSes noted just above are all from the month of October, 2019. – Bri.public (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete regretfully; not seeing anything great offered in terms of sources, per my edits immediately above (bri.public is me). Especially so if the one-sentence Global Times source is indicative of what we can expect in international sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:NTEMP It is notable now. Wm335td (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Miss Asia Pacific International, possibly merge. I'm not seeing much substantial coverage of this particular edition. Sandstein 13:20, 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 no consensus. After two re-lists there is no-consensus emerging here.
(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ironclaw

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ironclaw

Articles for deletion/Ironclaw (2nd nomination)

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

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

No indication of notability per
WP:GNG. There are reviews but not by any well-known or highly-followed sources. Google search for Ironclaw Holmgren fails to reveal non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conversely, a google search for Ironclaw RPG reveals non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a lot of results but not any
reliable sources; if there are some they should be added to the article. ... discospinster _talk 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: A quick look at the sources does show an improvement over the version of the article which was deleted a few months ago, although I would be happier if fewer of them from youtube – hopefully there are better
reliable sources out there than what we have so far. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Part of the problem here is that the initial release of this (like several other RPGs) was around the turn of the century, in print magazines; for example, digging in alt.fan.furry I found a mention of Knights of the Dinner Table #47, which seems like it might be a reliable source (note that it's far more than a comic. And indeed, it looks like Ironclaw's Rinaldi expansion is listed as one of "Brian's Picks". I can't see what it says without ponying up $2.99 - although it is asserted here that it was "pretty positive" (assuming that is the same review). Perhaps another editor here happens to have that issue in their collection? Nowadays, it looks like much reviewing of games does take place on YouTube (e.g. the 7 Realms Ironclaw reviews) - in part because it helps to see the product being reviewed. But I am no expert on who would be a notable reviewer in this context. GreenReaper (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider a review in the KODT magazine to be an independent reliable source. RPGnet's page on that magazine issue does indeed say that there was such a review. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone who believes they have a copy to see if they can find out what it says. Might not be instantly to hand since it's almost two decades old. Not sure about the protocol for copyright there if others here wish to review it, but judging by other issues of the magazine it won't be a huge part of the work. GreenReaper (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confident we can establish notability per
WP:GNG to a level commensurate with related topics. We'll dig for more. --RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am unconvinced that there are enough reliable sources for this to be notable. The game has several reviews but most of them are from Youtubers rather than established sites. The article should have been recreated with a proper draft on account of the prior deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I am open to changing my vote if new sources arise, I didn't find any. It looks like we currently have 1 source worth mentioning, and I don't know how in depth The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible is. Does anyone have a copy of the 2nd edition to see what it actually says on the subject? Rockphed (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to find more. Unfortunately even stuff from this decade is bitrotting, but I dug up a copy of the review of Ironclaw 2nd ed. by Iron Liz (Elizabeth Skochil), from the "Pen and Paper Corner" (IMDB), Series 1, Episode 6 "Ironclaw". You might want to skip to the actual review (03:54+) which details the setting, character building and game mechanics for fifteen minutes; prior to that is fluff addressing the fact that, yes, it's a furry RPG. Why is this notable coverage? Well, Iron Liz was an affiliate of
blip.tv (and now down, hence why I linked to a backup on YouTube). The review goes into enough detail to back an overview of the game mechanics, as well as criticism of the combat system, though it neglects the magic system (the self-commentary suggests this is due to production time constraints); I also saw it mentioned years later as where people had heard about the game. GreenReaper (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Since the comment above, additional sources have been found. Both first and second editions - separated by over a decade, not counting expansions and spinoff novels - have at least one instance of published third-party coverage; though I'd like to see the first edition's coverage to judge its significance. Some references to the second edition are self-serving inasmuch as they comes from publishers or retailers with a vested interest; but the Iron Liz review does not appear to be - while generally positive, it offers criticism of certain features. This instance of the article does not go into excessive systems detail (if anything, it could draw more on features covered in said review); what's there now is backed by references. The claim regarding relative notability compares it to closely-related RPGs covered here, at a particular time; the citation (but, bizarrely, not the assertion) was removed by another editor, but nonetheless it remains accurate. There is evidence of sustained presence at major U.S. furry conventions (first, second and fifth by attendance) to the present day, and while some citations regarding this have also been removed, I found another in Fred Patten's Furry Fandom Conventions, 1989-2015. GreenReaper (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of sources being added during AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based only on the sources in the article, I'm convinced that maybe one of them passes
WP:SIGCOV. I also have no problem in the future with undeletion/draftifying if others think sources can be found, but can't support a keep in its current state. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The game was analyzed in the New York University Doctoral Thesis "Narrative and identity in fantasy role -playing games" by Ken Lacy; Advisor Gregory R. Guy, 2006. Not sure what wikipedia's thoughts are on doctoral theses in regards to
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have seen them used as sources before, but that might be better posed as a question to say
WP:RSN or something like that. BOZ (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SIGCOV. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Unlike most theses, this one isn't free to view. It would be nice if someone with access to proquest to verify that the coverage in this source is significant.
talk, contribs) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. I have access to proquest from my university library and read the article. It's a significant topic in the thesis.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes
WP:RSN confirmed that a doctoral thesis is a reliable source because it goes through rigorous academic peer review. The disertation given by Ken Lacy is significant coverage of Ironclaw. This in conjunction with the sources provided by GreenReaper are enough to satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Actually, the RSN ("Are Doctoral Theses considered reliable sources".) didn't discuss whether Lacy's Dissertation was acceptable as a source to establish notability. As was pointed out in the discussion and noted in the guidelines for the acceptability of academic sources
WP:GNG. To establish whether or not a source has it been accepted and supported by the mainstream academic community we generally use the citations it has received in citation indexes. This thesis doesn't appear in high regard in the academic community as Google scholar show only 9 citations in a field where you would expect a citation count in the 100+ area. "Google scholar search". CiteSeerx show no results for author or paper. According to reliable sources guidelines, this paper could be consider reliable for the author's opinion and possibly the author's conclusions but not much else. CBS527^Talk 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This classification of a doctoral dissertation as "primary" and "not independent" in the context of Ironclaw doesn't make sense to me. What the guideline actually says is that "[Completed dissertations and theses] are often, in part, primary sources". The dissertation abstract makes clear that it examines the use of language within RPGs. The author did not write Ironclaw itself - he wrote about its use of language. This is likely to include both facts and opinion about Ironclaw; a portion that might be considered primary is the author's own ideas on language, set in relation to secondary source material, such as a summary of Ironclaw's use of language. To put it another way: Ironclaw is notable as it was selected for analysis by an independent academic (Ken Nozaki Lacy), with guidance from other academics (such as doctoral advisor and committee co-chair Dr. Mary Bucholtz, who was herself an invited speaker on identity in role-playing games in 2001-2), leading to facts and analysis of it being published by independent third-parties (New York University/ProQuest), which in turn was cited in other secondary or tertiary sources. I'm not sure what basis an arbitrary number of citations has been given, or indeed what field is being talked about (Role-playing games? Linguistics?), but it'd be great if someone with ProQuest access could actually use this source to obtain and cite a statement within Wikipedia's article on the topic, as evidence of its relevance for our purposes. GreenReaper (talk) 03:39, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek planet classification

Star Trek planet classification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into the Star Trek planet lists. Should include the description on the list page's introduction section, instead of making this act as a content page with brief descriptions of it. However, I don't agree that it is completely worthless, as the nominator mentioned, I just want it to be merged.WikiAviator (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was a Star Trek planet article worth merging it to, I'd say merge, but the ones here are pure
WP:ALLPLOT fancruft. So, I don't think this has a place on Wikipedia at the moment._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I mean that for the articles that list the planets, for example List of Star Trek planets (A–B), perhaps we can put that bit of description into the article, and after this process of fitting descriptions, delete it. I am not saying that this should not be deleted, but some content can be transferred while some should be deleted.WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only one of these that I would expect to have any currency outside of Star Trek fandom itself is class M (Earthlike). I've seen that invoked occasionally in news items about
talk) 15:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep I don't think merging is is a great idea, that article you suggested is big enough already, there are books on the subject, but just passes GNG in my view. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe significance. I'm also going to nominate List of Star Trek planets (A–B) for deletion as a test case. Release the ~~Kraken~~ Doomsday Machine. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is like a glossary without any relevance to the real-world, so no proper article could ever be written about it to satisfy per
WP:PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:15, 26 October 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. The argument that any coverage was local has not been rebutted. Deletion in the Polish Wikipedia is also an indicator of insignificance. Sandstein 13:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Ola Kozłowska

Aleksandra Ola Kozłowska (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 her pass
WP:NBIO. Some achievements 'sound' impressive but I can't find much about them (US Open Bachata Championship, etc., all red links), not sure if this falls under NSPORT or NMUSIC. There is a a bit in Polish, but not that much: [21] interview in minor news outlet, one more in Polish-American radio [22]... . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has now been deleted from pl wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; see
talk) 08:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:SIGCOV. I did find some more coverage where she was the main subject under her new married name: [23], [24], [25]. The article should probably be moved to Aleksandra Stańco-Kozłowska. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete None of the sources 4meter has found establish notability. 1st and 2nd are pure
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay and not policy. The sources (the ones in the article and the ones I provided collectively) show sustained coverage over a number of years within her field, and they support her competition wins at notable events within her artform. Within this particular area, interviews in the media are the most likely place for quality sourcing and the greatest indicator of notability. Not acknowledging that is a biased perspective that is likely to systemically impede coverage on notable international ballroom dancers encyclopedia wide.4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

But I will also point out the sources are
WP:LOCALCOVERAGE newspaper/radio for the medium-size city of Olsztyn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 24 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Asim

Syed Muhammad Asim (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)

Procedural nomination per
WP:DRAFTIFY after a draftification was reverted. Draftifying reason was Undersourced, incubate in draftspace, which was reverted with the reason this is a celrbity Iffy★Chat -- 11:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If he has actually—provenly—played
WP:NCRIC. On the other hand, if he doesn't, then I want to know more about the teams that he supposedly has played for. We don't seem to have an article on any of them: indeed, one of them appears to ba a bank, with no mention of cricket in its article. What gives? ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There is a Habib Bank Limited cricket team, but can't find any evidence he ever played for them either ([26]). Spike 'em (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no record of him being a first-class or List-A cricketer (so have removed claims from article). No record of him on Cricinfo Pakistani players list or cricketarchive Quetta list using any of "Syed Muhammad Asim", "Muhammad Asim" or Syed Muhammad, so he fails
WP:GNG, a google search finds just his twitter account. It seems to be an autobiography with some made up / exaggerated claims. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - honestly can't confirm that this person actually exists. To me it looks like their Twitter account was hijacked by a spammer some time around April, who then also created a Facebook profile for them, and began using both accounts to spam links for a telephone service. Prior to that they have what you'd expect of a professional athlete's social media profile: selfies, game photos, memes about rival teams, and so on. But he does not say what teams he plays for in that profile, for one thing, and also his official website is offline, and the only link in the article that might have been a reference is broken. Plus what everyone else has said about not being able to figure out which teams he claims to have played for. I'd be fine with returning this to draft space if I had faith that the creator was going to find sources and improve it, but their "this is a celebrity" rationale for reverting the move is not promising in that regard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Frankly, this article gives me~~
~~WP:GNG or that the subject even exists. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)~~^{(CU blocked, ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC))}[reply
]

Delete – Even if this person exists there's a major COI since the creator of the article is the person the article is about. 90.232.32.184 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no reliable, independent sources, and I can't find anything myself in a good faith search. --Jayron 32 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all and the fact that the user who predominately wrote it also appears to be the subject. Regards,
Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I couldn't find any sources when I did a search for them. I'm not even convinced that this person exists. While the article was created by someone who has the same name first, middle, and last name as the subject, it weirdly is devoid of any basic facts as well. You would think someone writing an article about themselves would know the names of their own mother and father instead of leaving those fields as "Unknown" on the infobox... Michepman (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - and did nobody notice that this is an autobio? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kudpung At least three users (myself, TheDragonFire300, Spike) noted that it was an autobiography and/or that the author and the article subject had the same exact name... Michepman (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right. Sorry, I missed it when I briefly scanned through the votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above , lacks coverage by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "He might exist" is not a persuasive argument in favor of keeping the article. ——SN 54129 15:04, 29 October 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 (revert to disambiguation page).
(non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Importance

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Importance

Articles for deletion/Importance (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations

Articles for deletion/Importance and basic experiments of science

Articles for deletion/Importance of Emotional Tone in Mediation

Articles for deletion/Importance of Question in negotiation

Articles for deletion/Importance of Vegetarianism in Sikhism

Articles for deletion/Importance of byzantine icons in worship

Articles for deletion/Importance of dress code at workplace

Articles for deletion/Importance of hajj an umrah

Articles for deletion/Importance of relationships - Online studies

Articles for deletion/Importance of water

Importance (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)

Delete as per
Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per
Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Revert to disambiguation page and lock it in that status. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Importance&oldid=672199163 . This is just a DICDEF as it stands, and to the extent there's an article to be had, the disambig page will have links to Social status and notability. SnowFire (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Revert to disambiguation page. While the topic article only gives a dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT is not a basis for deletion in this instance. To use as an example, let's take an article named Subsequent. (After coming up with this as an example, I found out that it exists as a cross-project redirect. Ignore that.) What would an article about the word "subsequent" be about? To my knowledge, there is no real encyclopedic information that can be associated with the term, so it doesn't warrant an entry in Wikipedia. However, it is a word that does indeed exist, so it should be an entry in Wiktionary instead. Now, for importance. The term importance is actually important, in the sense that there are encyclopedic topics that are known as "importance". These could be, but not limited to, the philosophy of importance and/or value, relative importance, social importance, etc. SnowFire points out that a disambiguation page used to exist here, which is what should be restored in this case. Utopes (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambiguation page per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambiguation page - given the how central the concept of notability is to Wikipedia (which is related to importance) makes sense to return to the disambiguation page per SnowFire. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the ban or block, with no substantive edits by other users. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

David Sanders (gastroenterologist)

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet
talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 24 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Khani, Arzuiyeh

Hoseynabad-e Khani, Arzuiyeh (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 sources to prove that this location actually exists. All links in the reflist are dead or unaccessible. Can't see any structures on Google Earth, can only see a road. WikiAviator (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer, dead links are not a cause for deletion. I've warned the nominator about the implied bad faith in this and other nominations. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Acroterion said, Wikipedia is a gazetteer per
not cause for deletion anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND.[27] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per
WP:GEOLAND. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:36, 28 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sharer

Stephen Sharer (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)

Lacks
wp:gng Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bollymine (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sharer is one of the most subscribed youtuber with over 2 billion channel views thats passes
WP:GNG and he has been covered by Newsweek, Cbslocal, PEOPLE magazine and others. Aksnahar (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I did a little research and according to socialblade.com, he is in "TOP 250 YOUTUBERS ENTERTAINMENT CHANNELS SORTED BY SUBSCRIBERS" and "TOP 5000 INFLUENTIAL YOUTUBE CHANNELS" I have added this new reference. I feel his stats are significant enough to be notable and also he has some notable coverage such as Newsweek and People, as above editor has already mentioned. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wouldn't say it lacks RS. There are plenty of sources from the media on him along these lines like People (here), CBS NEWS ([28]), etc. He's got a big following and he gets a lot of sustained attention in the light and fluffy kind of media stories. He's a celebrity of sorts.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chen

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jay Chen

Articles for deletion/Jay Chen (2nd nomination)

Jay Chen (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)

Appears to fail WP:NPOL - wasn't elected to congress or similar Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say whoever write this is really good to put Chen's best foot forward; but does not tell the whole story. Being a Mt. college Board of Trustees, school District school board member does not qualify to meet
talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People do not get articles for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so having been an unsuccessful congressional candidate in 2012 has no bearing on his notability at all — but the roles he has held, on the board of trustees of a public community college and a local school board, are not roles that guarantee a person a Wikipedia article either, and this is referenced nowhere near well enough to make him a special case. To be considered notable enough for an article on these grounds, the bar he would have to clear is that he's been the subject of much, much more nationalized coverage than the norm for these roles, thus making him much more nationally notable than the hundreds of thousands of other people who've done the same things without getting Wikipedia articles for them. The references are a
self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source at all; a very short blurb about him withdrawing from a primary, which is not substantive coverage; and a glancing mention of his existence in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree. This is not how you make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 24 October 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. The opinions of new editors and IP !voters are discounted due to their likely unfamiliarity with the criteria for inclusion. Outside of those, consensus is clear that this subject does not yet meet those criteria. bd2412 T 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Kwame Wiafe

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Nana Kwame Wiafe (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)

Dubious notability , over-emphasis on personal life and political ambitions, possibly promotional DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nana Kwame Wiafe is a well-known Ghanaian household name. From the article's references, you can tell of his notability. I do not get why the word 'Dubious' as used by DGG makes the article unfit for Wikipedia. There are several references from Google News to satisfy our doubts. An example of a dubious notable person from Ghana is this Geezygee (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a well known Entrepreneur, it is quite unfortunate the Ghanaian media writes more on his wealth either than his works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.11.9 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is a reputable person in the Ghanaian community. See https://www.google.com/search?q=Nana+Kwame+Wiafe&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&oq=nana+Kwame+Wiafe&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i59j69i60l3.2120j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Keep - The article is well sourced. Coming from Africa where news comes more often in papers, I believe the article is notable enough to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.10.73 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The person in particularly mostly referred to as Nana Wan is a popular figure in Ghana. Consider keeping this article.102.176.94.62 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment multiple IP voters who have found their way here with their first or second edit. Advise relisting Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article smacks of
WP:PROMOTIONAL I do not see a notable person Wm335td (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - refer to https://g.co/kgs/xqJcQN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezygee (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems like some quasi-celebrity, probably a social influencer; Coverage doesn't seem to be in depth and appears of shallow quality. He may become notable if he is elected to office in the 2024 election; But wikipedia is not a
Help out at CCI! 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep : The person here is Nana Wan, a popular businessman in Ghana with well established businesses in Ghana. He was recently interviewed on a big radio station concerning him running for MP in the coming elections. Consider keeping this article.AlikotoSam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - several of the above "keep" votes have been made by single purpose accounts that have never edited before. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self promotional. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails
WP:CANVAS may be at work here.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 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 09:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Peabody

Rob Peabody (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)

Dreadfully promotional article about a non-notable individual. The sources used in the article are not independent or reliable: [29] is written by his own organization; the other two references are dead but one is from the site "Fresh Expressions" which Peabody is affiliated with and one is from a Christian music licensing site. A
talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - References are entirely lacking, and I can find nothing better. Fails
WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing in
WP:RS suggesting notability is met. Article is written in a wholly unencyclopedic manner. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, the way it is written, it sounds like coat-rack spam: "the technology that is igniting a volunteer movement" and wording telling people to "join" the website by clicking on a link probably makes this a
WP:CSD#G13 candidate. Since I've already !voted, I'll leave that to another set of eyes. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I definitely agree that it reads like spam, and there's
talk) 06:31, 26 October 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 10:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nustar Fire

Nustar Fire (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)

Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep At least for now. The nomination seems to be a reason to not create the article. However it has already been created. As such, we should now wait (and without deleting) to see if "this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten". We can delete it in a few weeks, if so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nomination is a reason not to have the article. We don't keep articles in the hope that they may turn out to be about notable subjects, e.g. many football player articles get created when they get a contract with a professional team, but we delete them and only let them be recreated when they have actually played for the team, which may be only a few weeks later as well. Furthermore, it is unlikely that lasting notability will somehow happen in a few weeks: if nothing happens with the fire, then lasting notability is very unlikely to happen in even a few years, unless it somehow leads to some new law or something similar. There is nothing in the article as it stands to suggest that this fire will be notable at any time.

A compromise could be to move it to draft space, and let it get moved back to mainspace if it becomes a notable fire.
Fram (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now This could easily become a notable event, similar to e.g. the Buncefield fire. As it's already been created there's not need to draftify at this point. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as
too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

We should note that this fire is still being covered in reliable sources. Additionally, there may well be some kind of inquiry into it which may well extend coverage. Again, the comparison is the
WP:LASTING "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". This is such a case - it seems entirely possible that this will be anotable event so we should wait to see it's impact. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With some time passed, maybe it will be easier to decide on notability and impact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill event of no lasting significance. Claiming it may become notable falls afoul of
WP:CRYSTAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now relevant policies
WP:NTEMP Wm335td (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The first is an essay, not a policy: the second is part of a policy and needs to be read in combination with the immediately following section
Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am familiar with that page, thank you. That fire you keep referring to was " the biggest of its kind in peacetime Europe and certainly the biggest such explosion in the United Kingdom since the 1974 Flixborough disaster": "Because of an inversion layer, the explosions were heard up to 125 miles (200 km) away; there were reports that they were audible in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands". There are countless other fires comparable to the Nustar fire which don't have lasting notability, and which consequently don't have an article here. Taking an exceptional fire, with clear claims as to why it was exceptional, as a reason to keep a run-of-the-mill one because there is a small chance that it may turn out to be notable eventually, perhaps, who knows, it putting the cart before the horse.
Fram (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If you were familiar with that page, then you should have taken account of the potential for further coverage. Indeed, just a search of today's ongoing coverage in reliable sources of the fire shows that it is still ongoing. E.g., It turns out that Nustar didn't notify Hazmat officials about the fire, it also turns out that regulations about tank-farms may well change as a result of the disaster, all big indicators of likely ongoing coverage and potential lasting impact. You're saying this is a "dime-a-dozen", but not providing any explanation for why, if it is a "dime-a-dozen" fire, it's still being covered ten days later and regulatory changes are being proposed as a result of it. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hich all looks like routine coverage in the immediate aftermath. Just like when you get some crime which makes regional headlines, and then gets minor regional followup accounts about investigation, arrest, conviction. Google News lists only 11 reports over the last week[30], all of them from local/regional news (either a local source, or the local section of a larger news outlet). If news coverage dwindles this rapidly, it isn't a fire with "lasting" effect and notability (based on what we know now).
Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Petty crime doesn't lead to changes in the law, nor even anyone proposing changes in the law. However, in this case, regulatory changes are being proposed - which is a classic indicator of notability as it shows it "act[ing] as a precedent or catalyst for something else" per
WP:LASTING. Ten days isn't "dwindling quickly". FOARP (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"County regulations" (which is what may be changed here, "the county's industrial safety ordinance") are not the same as the kind of laws referenced in WP:LASTING though. Local regulations are in itself not even notable, and get changed all the time following events with a local impact. Neither the ordinances nor the things that lead to them are in most cases notable.
Fram (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The site is also under investigation by state and federal officials, so this is not just a county-level-issue, nor are the regulatory changes being discussed only county-level. For example the quake-check regulations are state regulations. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue than state law being changed. There seems to be no evidence that changes to national or state-wide quake-check regulations are being proposed, where did you get this information? They are looking at whether there was a link between a quake and the fire, but that is not the kind of thing which wp:lasting is about. Trying to determine the cause of a fire is a normal step.
Fram (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:LASTING. FOARP (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

keep The nomination correctly states that "fires happen every day around the world", but then asserts that they "get noted in the national news media, and then in most cases forgotten again..."
GNG is the relevant policy here. Fires that receive substantive covered by reliable sources merit an article, today.
I thought policy was clear on this, as contributors, all of us, everyone voicing an opinion here, including me, including Jimbo Wales and our nominator, is supposed to understand that our personal opinions on the importance of topics is supposed to take a distant back seat to the opinions of authoritative reliable sources. Yet, the nomination seems to assert we should second guess those authoritative reliable sources, and put our judgement ahead of theirs, at some point in the future, when it asserts "If this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten, then is the time to create an article. "
Consider murder. Murders are common, and, depressingly, similar. That is why we have articles about practically zero murders. Most murders are so similar that our articles on murder and related topics provide adequate coverage of them. Murders that are somewhat exceptional may merit a sentence, or a paragraph, or subsection in a related article. Murders that are quite exceptional may merit a standalone article, or even a cluster of articles. It should all depend on what authoritative reliable sources say, with a minimum of editorializing on our part. While "fires happen every day around the world", a brief web search shows that this fire had exceptional elements. [31] Responders didn't follow procedures, making the response worse. That merits a standalone article today, not months or years from now. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's still a news item 10 days after, though the big wildfires overshadow it; I just updated the article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have struck my "delete" as accepting that consensus is "keep" (although i am bemused by this wikiobsession with the almost instant creation of articles like this). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 27 October 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 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Acharya

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Karan Acharya

Articles for deletion/Karan Acharya (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Karan Acharya (3rd nomination)

Karan Acharya (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. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom grounds are badly wrong. This is an artist mainly known for one work - that is not at all what
WP:NARTIST, though this is not a conventional fine art career. Irf he is not notable, his best-known graphic probably is. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You are right, BLP1E does not accord with artists and their single or multiple works. You have misunderstood the rationale here. The subject's demand for copyright of his work made headlines in the newspaper during mid 2018. That event made him popular,and nomination is referring to that event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, BLP1E may be applicable. Apart from that, notability can not be inherited, even if his best-known graphic is notable. Hitro talk 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was speedy deleted at last AFD two months ago, by author request, then recreated Sept 14th 2019.
talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject is notable. Passes
want to talk? 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles to rewrite them was my point (see below). Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Harshil169 why would you want to delete it and then rewrite? Rather let's enhance the article, I am working on collating a list of independent references that help us do that Amitized (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Amitized[reply]

Keep passes
WP:GNG. It does need weeding of promotion, but that isn't of concern to this AFD. Harshil169 can always improve the article from its current condition.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Subject is notable. Passes
WP:NOTCLEANUP an editor can remove the promotional feel, but that is not a good deletion rationale. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Subject is notable, and passes the encyclopedia criteria
WP:ARTIST. The article needs clean up to remove any promotional language, which is an easy task, and not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Rhapsody

Portuguese Rhapsody (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)

One source only. Isn't reliable. WikiAviator (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion rationale has been presented. Having one source does not equal delete. Could the nom explain why they think that source isn't reliable? And per
WP:BEFORE, I found these sources within 10 seconds: one, two, three, four. I suspect there's lots more in Portuguese, but alas, I don't speak Portuguese. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep This is part of a series of poorly-considered AfD nominations by WikiAviator, who needs to review deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, didn't spot that! Nice work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep
WP:NEXIST. Subject is notable. Wm335td (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as it has reliable book sources as found by Lugnuts above,so passes
WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biduiyeh-ye Nakhai

Biduiyeh-ye Nakhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources are void. Validity in question. Location can't be found on numerous mapping softwares. Cannot verify if it exists. WikiAviator (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Geographic locations are notable by default. Dead links are not cause for deletion. Are you alleging that the article was created in bad faith? Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-standing consensus, Wikipedia is a gazetteer per
not cause for deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep
WP:GEOLAND Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND.[32] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per
WP:GEOLAND. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per
WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth B. Raper

Kenneth B. Raper (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)

Notability in question. Relies on one single source which is apparently published from the organisation he works for. WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The one source is the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, which only publishes biographies of National Academy members. Membership in the academy is an automatic pass of
WP:BEFORE to look for other sources, which are not hard to find [33] [34] [35] [36]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. GS citations pass
WP:Prof easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Speedy keep per both of the above. The end of the NAS biography mentions one other easy pass of the notability guideline for academics: The subject held a named chair at UW-Madison for 13 years (
WP:PROF#C5). Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. He's one of the authors listed in the Index Fungorum, and is the author of the name of an important model fungus species. The genus Raperia is apparently named in his honour. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:00, 24 October 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlawn (Oilville, Virginia)

Woodlawn (Oilville, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. All sources are dead or direct to a home page, but not the name of the house. Cannot prove that this is "historical" and notable. WikiAviator (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Locations on the National Register of Historic Places are inherently notable per longstanding consensus, please drop the scare quotes. Periodic changes to the referenced National Park Service database disrupt links from time to time. Dead links are not a cause for deletion. I've warned the nominator about the implied bad faith in this and other nominations. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fixed the dead link, and there's a more specific link to the National Register Information System's page on the house in the infobox. The National Register of Historic Places has a higher bar for listing than Wikipedia does for notability, so any individually listed property on it meets our guidelines. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been delisted from a couple of places, but not from the NRHP. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per
WP:BEFORE Wm335td (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC).[reply
]
And I'd note that notability is permanent - delisting or demolition do not constitute grounds for non-notability. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 25 October 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 previous consensus to Redirect was overturned by a consensus to Keep post a WP:HEY by
(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The Spurs

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

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

The songs got onto the
WP:NMUSIC
criteria. However, coverage is sparse at best. "The Spurs" + "Blacktop Fever" turns up only Wikipedia mirrors and a Soundcloud upload, and the album is not listed on AllMusic or Discogs.
Among the few results their names turn up in RPM, I found only this:

This issue (page 23) least confirms that it was a husband-and-wife duo of Phil and Becky Holmes and is the only substantial coverage I could find. The blurb mentions "airplay overseas" which is not elaborated on whatsoever, and mentions a nomination at the "Big Country Awards" which do not appear notable.

This issue (page 12) mentions them passingly in the context of
not inherited
from rubbing elbows with more famous people.

This one (page 14) only reiterates the chart positions from a few pages up, and that the single is 100% Canadian content (important for those CanCon laws).

The only other two hits that aren't just the charts themselves are merely sidebar ads for the label which mention the duo and the single name, plus Don Grashey's name and the label. Again, not significant coverage.
Even doing "The Spurs" + "Becky Holmes" + "Phil Holmes" gives absolutely nothing that isn't from the pages of RPM. If it weren't for the fact that Phil posted the songs on Soundcloud, I would almost think this to be a
copyright trap
of some kind.
tl;dr: I think we've got another clear-cut case similar to
WP:NMUSIC is met. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect the title to Spur (disambiguation). Sports teams with the name might be searched for with a preceding "The". bd2412 T 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the criteria at
WP:NMUSIC as mentioned by the nominator. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) there was a clear place to redirect the article which is why the decision was made to not follow the normal policy. In this case, there is no place to redirect to, and blatantly ignoring the policy guideline sets a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

They may meet
WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@TenPoundHammer: You obviously didn't read my comment carefully as I said "there is no place to redirect to" and was not arguing for a redirect. I was pointing out why there was a viable alternative at AFD for Waycross (band); an alternative that does not exist in this case.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't made a case as to why The Spurs should be kept. Yes, they meet
WP:GNG, and this seems to be one of them. I merely highlighted Waycross as an example of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes I have. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per rationale of nom. While WP:NMUSIC is technically met (if you AGF since the links are dead), NMUSIC also clearly states, "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept".
WP:GNG, and there is no viable redirect target, delete seems to be the only route to go. After deletion, I think BD2412's idea of creating a redirect to the dab page has merit.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - @4meter4:, barring the addition of more sources, I propose redirecting the article here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jax 0677 or Keep. Deletion is not an option per subject specific notability guideline as I stated above. However, as there is little more to be added then the redirect offered by Jax 0677, a redirect would be a sensible editorial decision. The record of the article history however should be left intact in case better referencing later emerges. I struck my keep vote above.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: and @4meter4: Would you be okay with me moving the article to The Spurs (band) and then redirecting to 1999 in country music, then redirecting just "The Spurs" to Spur (disambiguation)? That way, if someone wants to re-create the article, its history will be held at The Spurs (band) while anyone typing in just "The Spurs" will find any of the other entitites that can be referred to as "The Spurs". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:Sounds like a good plan to me.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
Bd2412: do you agree with my above proposal? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - Move the article to The Spurs (band) and then redirect to 1999 in country music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go with TPH's suggestion- I'd expect The Spurs to be either a disambig, or possibly a redirect to
Tottenham Hotspur, not an obscure band article. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I suggest you make it The Spurs (Canadian band), If you google "The Spurs" it appears there were others sharing the name. See for example Jenny Dont and the Spurs. This would solve the anticipated potential ambiguity problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have substantially improved the article, and sourced it with the available sources I could find. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen: I still think that's pretty thin at best, especially considering those are literally all the sources Google could find and most of them are only chart positions or passing mentions. There seems to be a consensus to my above-mentioned suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, [[User:7&6=thirteen]] works seamlessly, and I think better.

Ten Pound Hammer
, I understand your concerns.

I did not fault you for compliance with
WP:Before
, as there are no other references that I could find on line. And I really tried. It is clear that you as the nominator tried, too; unlike many AFDs I've participated in. So you deserve props for that.

I would submit that they were part of the scene, and the article as NOW constituted makes a case for their notability, albeit over an apparently limited time span. The article is now what it was when it was nominated for deletion. Whether this changes things like
WP:Before
mandates we should take into account what the article could become.

But Canadian country artists are not really my bailiwick; although I think that there origin is a mitigating factor for the apparent lack of coverage. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the notability requirement for bands. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." We have the subject specific guidelines to avoid having to argue nonstop in AFDs about this and end up with random results whether the same thing is kept or deleted based on whatever random group of people show up and who closes it. Dream Focus 02:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now meets
WP:NMUSIC 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
~~WP:BEFORE, this one was difficult Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Keep for now.
WP:ATD. More research is needed but 7&6=13 made a good start. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Redirect per Jax 0677. I think the improvements might be enough to keep it, but I'm not 100% sure. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think
WP:HEY applies now, and a keep is now preferable over the redirect since I last contributed to this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 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. (disregarding nominator's !vote as a blocked LTA sock) Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.sch (file extension)

.sch (file extension) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is a
list of indiscriminate items
. It lists six unrelated apps, all of which use the same three letters for their otherwise different file formats.
A template has erroneously identified this page as a set index article,
defined as
"a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". However, I wouldn't call "Microsoft Schedule", "Altium", and "Protel" similar names.
Update: Since this nomination, it has come to my attention that two of the items listed in this short laundry list are not apps at all; Altium is a company and Protel is its former name. A product named "Protel" in not listed in Altium § Products or the article's sole source. So, the designations "old versions" and "some versions" are inaccurate. In the absence of reliable sources, we don't know what else is bogus.
Update 2: The author of the page has since then changed both entries, so that they point to Altium Designer. Still, it is one product, no sources, and the original concern of not being a list of barely related items with no educational value.
flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. This is not an indiscriminate list of items but an article about the file extension ".sch", which is used by several ECAD programs for schematics. Actually, some of the programs in the list are even related (Protel and Altium) and use(d) variations of the same file format, thereby invalidating the nominator's claim, they were unrelated.

Depending on how much work will be put into the article it could become a full-blown article or remain a set list or trunced down to a disambiguation page. The reason why it cannot be changed back into a redirect (as it originally was) is because multiple ECAD programs use .sch as a file extension so there is no primary link target. The reason why deleting it would be an exercise in futility is because the article helps readers running into this file extension to select the correct application using this file extension in order to learn more about it. As design files are often interchanged, running into this scenario without knowing the program beforehand is a common scenario. The article name .sch is unlikely to collide with many other meanings, so there is no point in deleting it to make room for an article about a different topic. We have similar small articles about other file extensions for the same purpose of helping to disambiguate them and aid navigation. Deleting it would be destroying a piece of Wikipedia's infrastructure while gaining absolutely nothing for it in return.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make up your mind: Is it an article or a set index list? If it is an article, you have to deal with Wikipedia:Notability, which is lacking. As for "the nominator's claim, they were unrelated", it is actually the article's claim. It reads: "all using different file formats". And since you're the writer of the article, it is you who have said it. So, the claim that get invalidated is yours. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, in the current state it is a set index - this gives the most flexibility for further article work for now. But it could be reworked into a full-blown article over time or trunced down to a disambiguation page. But that's something that can be decided upon by contributors on the article's talk page and not a reason to nominate it for deletion.

Regarding the claim, the wording could be improved but is not incorrect as it is.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is bogus. It just comes apparent that you are not familiar with those EDA programs (the programs are typically referred to just as Protel and Altium for simplicity). That's not a problem, but your somewhat aggressive-demanding undertone is: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while it can be helpful for readers to comment on weaknesses in articles or missing information (on article talk pages, not by drawing the articles to deletion processes), in most cases the contributors already know about it and even might have plans how to improve the articles, but just had not enough time to research and/or add the new information yet. That's why anyone is encouraged to improve articles, including you. Together, and over time, the quality of articles will rise. But that's a lot of work, and it will take years.

(BTW. I moved your "update" down for chronology, because it was a significant modification of the original nomination, and if it would stay before the other comments, they could look as if they were out of context.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Set indexes, disambiguation pages and redirects don't need any references at all, in fact they are even forbidden on the latter two types. Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, they exist to aid navigation from ambiguous entries (like a file extension here) into related articles.
WP:NOTLINK even explicitly excludes disambiguation pages and lists: "Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation". So, it's perfectly okay to list the various EDA tools associated with file extension .sch here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not any notable file-extension. People in the software industry can make custom file-extensions according to their needs. This seems one of these. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, this is the very nature of file extensions, but this does not make them non-notable. The opposite is true, they are notable because they are used by various programs (in this cases even many for which we have articles, thus even more notable). But either way, notability is not even a requirement for disambiguation pages and
WP:NOTLINK). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguate. The consensus above is, rightly, that there isn't a notable use for the extension. This means there shouldn't be an article in this space. But it's likely that someone who doesn't know what a .sch file is, and finds one, might look for more information in an encyclopaedia. They should find a disambiguation page that enables them to find that information. The "article" in its current form is nearly a disambiguation page already. And of course, disambiguation pages aren't subject to notability requirements.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above already, I would not object changing this set index into a disambiguation page. The difference is small. What matters IMO is that there is an entry at this location to catch the file extension and help users navigate into the various articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we can fulfill the
WP:DABMENTION requirements here. Half of these don't even a source. flowing dreams (talk page) 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is very easy to fulfill DABMENTION with a sentence like "This EDA tool uses the file extension .sch to store schematics" added to the articles. That would certainly be useful and I would not object to it at all, but is more a topic related to a discussion on article improvement rather than for AfD. Our MOS states that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to aid navigation, and that while we have some standard formats how to present the information, we are also free to choose other presentations if they serve the purpose better. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SCH as disambiguation. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a possibility as well, but given that there are several different entries for ".sch" already, I think it deserves an entry of its own. Also, the disambiguation page for "SCH" will likely grow considerably over time, so it's good to keep sub-groups separate. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a source for them, add those info to the corresponding articles and fulfill the
WP:DABMENTION requirements, maybe. flowing dreams (talk page) 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a set index. This seems to fit the type well - "a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". "A circuit schematic file [used] by various electronic design automation programs" is actually quite specific, and distinctions within such subsets is what a set index is for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae and Matthiaspaul.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Firstly this is not a notable file extension. Secondly, this article is absolutely empty, as it only lists softwares that use ".sch", rather than telling the readers what is sch file. Moreover, this article is weak in citations as it relies on one single source.WikiAviator (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a normal article (although it could possibly become one in the distant future - but this is not an alternative right now). As a set index or disambiguation page it does not need to have any citations as all (they are even forbidden on disambiguation pages). Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, their purpose is to aid navigation to articles related to the topic of disambiguation, in this case a commonly used file extension. Also, the very fact that this file extension is used by quite a number of EDA CAD tools for schematics establishes the need for disambiguation, because people will run into this extension and try to figure out what it is and which tools can be used to open the files. Not offering them the choice of links to related articles would be a disservice to our readers. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think this might be reworkable into a bona fide article, potentially as a disambiguation. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator Flowing dreams has been blocked as a sock. 11:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Per Matthiaspaul, Elmidae, 4meter4 Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 29 October 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. After three re-lists, there is still no sign of any consensus here, and both directions being advocated by established editors with reasonable arguments. No prejudice to a future re-listing at AfD.
(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Helpling

Helpling (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)

Everything here is either promotional or a trivial notice about funding. Interviews where the founder says what they want to are not reliable sources for notability or for anything else, except for what they (or their pr advisor) thinks will be effective. advertising for their enterprise.
See adjacent AfD for the article on the founder. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Frenken, Koen; van Waes, Arnoud; Pelzer, Peter; Smink, Magda; van Est, Rinie (2019-07-31). "Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy". doi:10.1002/poi3.217
. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
The article notes:
Cleaning: Helpling
Helpling mediates between private cleaners and private households via its website, with the cleaner being hired by the household. At the time of the analysis, Helpling charges a fee of 20 percent of the hourly rate (14.90 euro) for its service. Applicants for work as cleaners via Helpling are pre‐screened before being admitted to the platform, which includes an intake interview to discuss the individual's motivation, a CV, references and work experience, and a test of the applicant's understanding of what cleaning involves. The prospective cleaner also has to submit a Certificate of Good Conduct (interview Helpling). The platform uses a rating system regarding the quality, reliability, and sociability of the cleaner.
The public debate concerning the cleaning platform Helpling concentrates on the social protection and the remuneration of the task provider. The current regulatory framework regarding cleaning in the home, the Home Services Regulation (HSR), was drawn up in January 2007 to protect the legal status of domestic cleaners. Working conditions include a safe and healthy workplace, minimum wage, and 8 percent holiday pay, paid annual leave and sick leave (for a maximum of 6 weeks). Cleaners are responsible for their own tax declaration. The HSR is not effective in practice, however, partly because private clients are not familiar with it. Instead, the large majority of Dutch household who rent cleaners, do so offline in the informal market and without any contract.6 Helpling applies the HSR as guideline (such as minimum wage including holiday pay) and also sends cleaners an annual statement of income which they can use to file their tax returns. An unknown share of cleaners may not pay tax, knowing that Helpling will not disclose their personal details and income to the tax authorities. This links to the public interest of fair competition. One can argue that Helpling is competing unfairly with regular cleaning companies, because few cleaners on their platform pay taxes and often have no social security (interview OSB).
Interestingly, in the public debate about Helpling there is little focus on the question of whether Helpling is not in fact an employer or a temp agency. The platform makes use of clients' reviews and in this way indirectly conducts continual quality checks on cleaners. Repeatedly poor performance reviews result in a talk and, ultimately, a cleaner may be denied access to the platform. Helpling also sets the hourly rate for a cleaning task. All this leads to a dependency relationship between platform and cleaner, with many cleaners acquiring a large proportion of their income through Helpling. To avoid being considered as an employer, Helpling performs no quality checks and deliberately does not give cleaners any instructions. Cleaners are also free to choose where and when they offer their services. More recently, Helpling changed its pricing policy, allowing cleaners to set their own price.

Frenken, Koen; van Waes, Arnoud; Pelzer, Peter; Smink, Magda; van Est, Rinie (2017). "A fair share: Safeguarding public interests in the sharing and gig economy" (PDF). Rathenau Institute. pp. 44–51. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30 – via University College Utrecht.
This article has the same authors as the first source.
The article notes:
This chapter considers the case of Helpling, a digital platform for domestic cleaning services. The key public interest addressed in this case study is the occupational status and legal position of the cleaner. The chapter starts with an introduction to Helpling. The existing cleaning market and how public interests are safeguarded in it are described in section 4.2, where we show that the legislative and regulatory framework for the sector has been under discussion for some time. Section 4.3 reviews the legal position of the domestic cleaner and the status of Helpling. Should Helpling be seen as an intermediary or an employer? And how can the legal position of domestic cleaners be safeguarded? The chapter concludes with an overview of the issues relating to public interests in the domestic cleaning market and the possibilities for strengthening the safeguards.
The article notes:
Helpling is a newcomer in the cleaning industry. The digital platform was founded in Germany in 2014 and operates in the domestic cleaning market. Helpling's founder secured an investment from Rocket Internet26 and shortly afterwards expanded the business into other countries, including the Netherlands.

Vasagar, Jeevan (2013-10-09). "Peer-to-peer website cleans up". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
The article notes:
Teddle began last April as a marketplace in which any demand could be listed, from clearing wisteria to teaching piano lessons. For co-founder Alex Depledge, it was a way to use the internet to make even the tiniest of local businesses accessible.
But Teddle, and other sharing economy businesses like it in the UK, are finding that their grand vision of a virtual labour market in which micro-entrepreneurs can strike a series of small deals is turning out to be depressingly akin to running a temping agency.
The London-based start-up was forced to make the first big shift in its business model when it found that searches for just one service – cleaning – outnumbered all others by a four to one ratio.
Teddle is a previous name of Helpling.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Helpling to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cunard's multiple reliable sources. PamD 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment source 1 and source 2 are the same. The author published it in two formats, as a journal article and as a report. It'slike saying an author published multiple books if they published the ame book under several different titles. ANdin any case, this firm is only one of the 5 discussed, and they arethere as examples, not necessarily the most important. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
It is clear that the journal article and the report provide significant coverage about Helpling. The two journal article and the report contain different material about the company so I consider them to be sufficiently different to be separate sources. There is no requirement for Helpling to be considered "the most important" of the five examples discussed.
Cunard (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional or trivial coverage and content. Coverage also based on PR campaigns. Interviews with the founder is promotional, not second or third party independent coverage. Fails CORPDEPTH, GNG, and WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion
WP:NOTPROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, most of the coverage is PR. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To address the concerns about the sources being promotional coverage about Helpling, I searched for sources that provided negative coverage and critical analysis about Helpling. Helpling, which is based in the United Kingdom, has a heavy presence in Germany, so I focused on German-language sources:

Hugen, Wiebke (2018-02-22). "Wisch und weg: Online-Reinigungsdienste sind schnell gebucht. Aber die Saubermacher sind teuer – und fehlerfrei putzen sie nicht, wie unser Test ergab" [Wipe and go Online cleaning services are booked quickly. But the Saubermacher are expensive - and flawless they do not clean, as our test showed]. Guter Rat (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Schaum, Marlis; Pfister, Sandra (2015-03-16). "Helpling: Saubere Geschäfte?" [Helpling: Clean shops?]. Hielscher or Haase (in German). Deutschlandfunk Nova. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

Mumme, Thorsten (2019-07-16). "Illegal beschäftigte Putzhilfen: Wie die Start-up-Szene an der Schwarzarbeit scheitert: Portale wie Helpling machen es leicht, Putzkräfte legal zu beschäftigen" [Howthe start-up scene fails at the moonlighting: Portals like Helpling make it easy to legally hire cleaners. But 90 percent are still working black. Why is that?]. Der Tagesspiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

Dörner, Stephan (2015-06-16). "Das taugt das Online-Putz-Portal Helpling" [That suits the online cleaning portal Helpling]. Die Welt (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

White, Katharina (2018-04-10). "App test: How well do Helplings clean?" [App-Test: Wie gut putzen Helplinge?]. Berliner Morgenpost (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

Sources with quotes

Hugen, Wiebke (2018-02-22). "Wisch und weg: Online-Reinigungsdienste sind schnell gebucht. Aber die Saubermacher sind teuer – und fehlerfrei putzen sie nicht, wie unser Test ergab" [Wipe and go Online cleaning services are booked quickly. But the Saubermacher are expensive - and flawless they do not clean, as our test showed]. Guter Rat (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
From Google Translate:
HELPING: Cheap, but with shortcomings
...
Cancellation. Up to 48 hours before the appointment free of charge, until 24 hours before 10 euros fee, then: Costs for one hour cleaning. Simple process, good customer service, travel included, appointment reminder by SMS, value for money good. No correction guarantee in case of dissatisfaction, cleaning staff came and went too early, surprisingly hardly had knowledge of German, cleaning equipment had to be provided, pets were not taken into account, cleaning performance was only satisfactory
From Google Translate:
Language barrier. It also came as a surprise that our helpling was barely German and we had to quickly translate our carefully prepared checklist for cleaning into English - probably for those who then had vocabulary such as "decalcifier" and "faucet" on it. The other providers sent at least one German-speaking cleaning force.

Schaum, Marlis; Pfister, Sandra (2015-03-16). "Helpling: Saubere Geschäfte?" [Helpling: Clean shops?]. Hielscher or Haase (in German). Deutschlandfunk Nova. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
This is a podcast on the show Hielscher or Haase with two people: moderator Marlis Schaum and Sandra Pfister from Deutschlandfunk Nova's business department. From a Google Translate summary of the episode:
Cleaning aid per app: This is possible for some time on many online portals. Helpling is currently expanding in Germany, with a cleaning hour costing customers 12.90 euros. And you can also deduct from the tax. Good: The cleaning staff do not have to work black. That sounds good. However, the Stiftung Warentest has its doubts as to whether the Helpling bill can really be deducted from the tax. The reason: If you let clean, does not transfer the cleaning power directly, but to the online portal Helpling. A step that is not provided for in the Income Tax Act, says Sandra Pfister from our business office. Customers have to wait and see if they really get their money back at the next tax return.
Despite this uncertainty - the business of Helpling and similar providers is running. Customers in Germany can now choose between several providers. Behind Helpling is Rocket Internet, a company of the Samwer brothers, which, among other things, brought the clothes sender Zalando on the stock exchange.
"Cleaning ladies who work at Helpling have no fixed income, no protection against dismissal, no paid leave." Sandra Pfister from the economics department.

Mumme, Thorsten (2019-07-16). "Illegal beschäftigte Putzhilfen: Wie die Start-up-Szene an der Schwarzarbeit scheitert: Portale wie Helpling machen es leicht, Putzkräfte legal zu beschäftigen" [Howthe start-up scene fails at the moonlighting: Portals like Helpling make it easy to legally hire cleaners. But 90 percent are still working black. Why is that?]. Der Tagesspiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
From Google Translate:
Helpling has supplanted the competition

Of the start-ups, who started with much verve, there are only a few left, and the market has consolidated. After the "The Winner takes it all" rule in the platform industry, the company Helpling , which was founded by Rocket Internet, gradually took over competitors such as clean agents or family helpers and thus became the leading provider of private-sector mediation. Competitor Book a Tiger specialized more and more in commercial customers. The US company Homejoy retired from Germany.
But also the way from Helpling was not free from difficulties. In 2015, the company had to lay off a fifth of its employees, Rocket Internet then corrected the company's value by over twelve million down. As a result, the start-up softened its business model and opened its platform for other household-related services such as furniture construction or clearing out. With private cleaning alone, there seems to be no business to do.
Nevertheless, Helpling, which is also active in Singapore, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, today sends several orders a day in Berlin alone in Berlin alone. The cleaning staff are self-employed and set their own prices. However, you have to calculate that Helpling will keep a commission when making a booking. For a one-time cleaning, 32 percent of the hourly rate is charged, with regular cleaning 25 percent including VAT.

Dörner, Stephan (2015-06-16). "Das taugt das Online-Putz-Portal Helpling" [That suits the online cleaning portal Helpling]. Die Welt (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
From Google Translate:
In contrast, those who order a "helpling" do not necessarily get what many people imagine under a classic cleaning aid in Berlin: it is often young students or life artists from countries such as Australia, France, Portugal, Spain or the USA who are necessarily in Berlin want to live and stay afloat with side jobs. Most do not speak German.
Helpling has meanwhile removed the word "professional" from the website - it now guarantees a "high-quality" cleaning, which is to be ensured through a rating system, among other things.
...
In the test of the "world" the quality of the cleaning work of the "Helplinge" was mostly good - but occasionally they were not punctual. It also turned out to be difficult to set up a "wish helpling" - it always came back somebody else. The customer must then be at home, go through an introduction again and again and can not simply hand over his key.
...
Conclusion: The cleaning gantries are better than illicit work - but you should not expect the professionalism of a cleaning company from the low-cost suppliers. Anyone ordering a helpling in Berlin must also be prepared to communicate in English only.

White, Katharina (2018-04-10). "App test: How well do Helplings clean?" [App-Test: Wie gut putzen Helplinge?]. Berliner Morgenpost (in German). Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
From Google Translate:
The fact that Helpling has been doing everything for years to avoid being understood as an employer is well known. For some, Franke is a posterboy of the privileged neo-liberals, for others a mastermind who fights the black market and advocates more self-determination for solo self-employed in the low paid sector.
...
But how is it going to work that this cohesion of customer and service provider continues to take place via the Helpling app? It remains to be asked why both should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling.
...
Whether this security can outweigh the safety in terms of dismissal and occupational safety as well as pension and health insurance, the solo self-employed must decide for themselves.
The article includes a right of reply from Helpling's co-founder.

Summary of sources

Wiebke Hugen wrote in the Germany business magazine Guter Rat in a review of Helpling, "No correction guarantee in case of dissatisfaction, cleaning staff came and went too early, surprisingly hardly had knowledge of German, cleaning equipment had to be provided, pets were not taken into account, cleaning performance was only satisfactory".
Sandra Pfister, who works in public broadcasting station Deutschlandfunk Nova's economics department, said in the Hielscher or Haase radio program, "Cleaning ladies who work at Helpling have no fixed income, no protection against dismissal, no paid leave" and noted that there was significant uncertainty over whether Helpling customers could get a tax return from the Helpling bill based on the Income Tax Act.
Thorsten Mumme wrote in Der Tagesspiegel, a German daily newspaper, that "Helpling was not free from difficulties" in that it had to lay off 20% of its employees in 2015 and its investor Rocket Internet reduced its value by more than 12 million. The article provides further analysis by saying the company could not do further business with only private cleaning, so it began to do other household services including making furniture and moving people's belongings.
Stephan Dörner wrote in the national German newspaper Die Welt that "you should not expect the professionalism of a cleaning company from the low-cost suppliers. Anyone ordering a helpling in Berlin must also be prepared to communicate in English only."
Katharina White in Berliner Morgenpost provides critical analysis of the company, writing, "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling."
Cunard (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Passes
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:RELIST
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete completely
WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA... at very best it could be cited as an example on gig economy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not true that this is "A small wave of PR-generated media attention focussed in London five years ago, almost exclusively for the period February-June 2014." The five sources I provided at 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC) were published by newspapers and magazines based in Germany in 2015, 2015, 2018, 2018, and 2019, which is over a span of multiple years. These sources are about Helpling and provide negative coverage and critical analysis of Helpling. The peer-reviewed academic journal article Policy & Internet was published in 2019 and provides three paragraphs of coverage about Helpling. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Five pieces in a period of four years cannot constitute significant coverage. In terms of the content, the German-language sources are either consumer-review, road tests of multiple cleaning service companies or about the unregulated, precarious nature of work in the gig economy. All but one (and that one, the Berliner Morgenpost is regurgitating material from the companý's press kit) refer to Helpling as one example among many - the articles cited only provide notability for issues related to the gig economy (ie web-based provision of unskilled labour, lack of tax, failure of labour market regulation etc), not Helpling per se. All of this is trivial coverage of Helpling. The Policy & Internet is one single, peer-reviewed 28 page article, which only discusses Helpling directly in three paragraphs (so about 1.5% of the entire article) - this alone cannot indicate ongoing notability. Helpling is used as a case amongst many - again reinforcing the point that the company is an example of a wider phenomenon, but not notable by itself.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
All of the sources I provided "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".
For two articles that are only about Helpling and contain no information about any other company, see this article from Deutschlandfunk Nova and this article from Berliner Morgenpost.
The Berliner Morgenpost article is not "regurgitating material from the companý's press kit". It includes quotes from an interview with the company's founder but it also has critical analysis of the company. It says "It remains to be asked why both [customers and cleaners] should not leave the app system behind after a successful test run, and make a payment in which eliminates the percentage of Helpling." It includes other critical analysis such as "For some, Franke [founder of Helpling" is a posterboy of the privileged neo-liberals, for others a mastermind who fights the black market and advocates more self-determination for solo self-employed in the low paid sector." The article further notes that the cleaning service is cheap but not everything goes to the cleaner who has several fees they must pay Helpling.
To say categorically that "Five pieces in a period of four years cannot constitute significant coverage" has no basis in the notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic was the gig economy, then yes, the majority of the pieces cited would lend support for notability. The extent of coverage over periods of time is a component in assessing notability, see
WP:NOTPROMOTION."--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
TThe
WP:SUSTAINED.
Cunard (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The following stands out: Helpling is a company that comes into existence in 2015 following the acquisition of other companies. The majority of material presented as
WP:RS on the company are churnalism. There is no newspaper of record coverage of Helpling (although there is one item of its earlier incarnation). What material does not fall into those categories discusses Helpling with other companies in the context of the gig economy. There is nothing here to indicate why this company is actually notable.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:49, 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 keep. Tone 09:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsar 590

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pulsar 590

Articles for deletion/Pulsar 590 (2nd nomination)

Pulsar 590 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This headset does not appear to meet the notability guideline for
significant coverage. SITH (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The device had an independent main subject review in WP:BEFORE was followed.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional reviews I found include:
"Explore the world from your desk: Google and Microsoft are both testing ambitious new mapping programs. Beware: Even guys who are genetically incapable of asking for directions will be addicted.(Business Life/gadgets)(Column)(MSN Virtual Earth and Google Earth)(Product/Service Evaluation)". Lewis, Peter; Fortune, Sept 5, 2005, Vol.152(5), p.158

"Untether Thyself: Four cures for portable audio's attachment disorder.(Product/Service Evaluation)"; Regenold, Stephen, Popular Science, Oct 1, 2005, Vol.267(4), p.1

Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The device has also been used in peer reviewed research contexts. See: "Inducing circular vection with tactile stimulation encircling the waist"; Tinga, Angelica M ; Jansen, Chris ; van Der Smagt, Maarten J ; Nijboer, Tanja C.W ; van Erp, Jan B.F, Acta Psychologica, January 2018, Vol.182, pp.32-38; and "Response to tendon vibration questions the underlying rationale of proprioceptive training."; Lubetzky, Anat Vilnai ; Mccoy, Sarah Westcott ; Price, Robert ; Kartin, Deborah; Journal of Athletic Training, Feb, 2017, Vol.52(2), p.97(11)4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can expand by adding new sources and descriptions.WikiAviator (talk) 05:57, 24 October 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 09:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Broccoli

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS. One source is from yesterday and the rest from today, which does not yet indicate lasting notability. The "part of a group of climate protesters who bared their buttocks in the House of Commons that April" is unsourced. Lopifalko (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is the very definition of a not news violation. We lack anything other than a quick coverage of a news event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There has been regular coverage of him since he became known, as shown in the number of independent sources he lends his name to. He's also gained sufficient attention on different fronts, not just a single news story, for example through his participation in an anti-Brexit march in London. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andysmith248: What the article says is that he became known on 13 October 2019 for Extinction Rebellion activities, and related to that he did a TV interview on 16 October 2019; then the "different front" is that he attended an anti-Brexit march on 19 October 2019. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Meets the citation and notability guidelines.WikiAviator (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without objection to Userfying or recreating down the road if coverage continues - Certainly too soon. No indication of lasting significance. That the coverage since this was nominated has been largely negative/critical, highlights the
WP:1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per Nom of
pseudo biography
gives any one of six reasons for for not having stand alone status. The creator is not new to Wikipedia so one would think know how to request userfication. Then again, it would seem creating an article such as this would be considered something from a newer editor unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, but what do I know?

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTNEWS.Strandvue (talk) 14:12, 27 October 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 09:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who planets

List of Doctor Who planets (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)

Overly in-depth, in-universe,
WP:PLOT-only topic that fails GNG as far as I can see. No way am I looking individually at 400+ references, but I'm not seeing anything to establish notability with a cursory glance. If there isn't one already, I'm sure a setting article on the series' universe/multiverse could flourish, but that would in no way require such a list of minutia. Proper context for minor locations is certainly covered in the text of the few hundred episode articles, so there is no way you could justify this being a necessary split. This is information only the most hardcore fans need, which I'm sure is covered at Fandom or another wiki on the series. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure
WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:ALLPLOT with no indication of its encyclopedic importance. This information is already on the Dr. Who Wiki so it doesn't need to remain here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This is a really good crafted list article. Some editors believe that only real-life topics have value in an encyclopedia, but well crafted sub-pages of extremely popular franchises have their purpose as well. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do, if they pass
WP:NOTPLOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I can and have voted keep on articles with significant amounts of fictional content. There are editors out there who are under the impression that I am some kind of deluded BSG/Star Wars/Star Trek fanboi because of the regularity with which I do so. However, in each case it's because I've found sources sustaining notability of the article. In this case, I cannot find any such sources. If there are reliably-sourced books or articles out there discussing the planets of Doctor Who, I have failed to find them. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the entries are one-offs, refugees from the planet FANCRUFT. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telos (Doctor Who), Mars (Doctor Who). How many of these meet Wikipedia's standards for notability? If enough of them are valid articles then this list is justified. If not then just redirect this to Doctor Who. While listing information does help people understand this notable long lived series better, they can find this information easily on wikia/fandom with far more detail so no reason for it to remain on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Dream Focus: These should be done on a case-by-case basis. ミラ P 23:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The list or the planets? A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, listing links to related articles. But if all those articles are going to be deleted/redirected/merged anyway, then its pointless. Dream Focus 01:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all those planet articles, and they all seem like fancruft to me that wouldn't pass GNG. The majority of them are clear candidates for merging/redirecting. Even
WP:INUNIVERSE plot information._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Any list still needs to pass
WP:LISTN - this means that not just any list of items for which there are notable articles is itself notable. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per WP:FANCRUFT.Knox490 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 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
Psi Corps. Another target for redirection may be chosen at any time. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Telepath War

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

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babylon 5. No merge required. Searchable term. --Masem (t) 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Psi Corps, which mentions the fictional event with good context. This is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect. I love B5 but this plot device likely fails NFICTION/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a question for those suggesting a redirect to the article on the show. I do not see the exact phrase "Telepath War" in the article so wouldn't a redirect be somewhat confusing?
Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"Telepath War" is explicitly mentioned in
Psi_Corps#The_Psi_Cops_and_opposition_to_the_Corps, hence my recommended target article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect target disagreed on at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 02:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -
Aoba47 -- If we do end up choosing to redirect it to Babylon 5 or to another article, we could always add a small section to that article that would summarize the important information from this article over there. I definitely agree with you that it would be risky to redirect the article to another article that could also end up being deleted though haha Michepman (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for the message. I am always partial to a redirect as it would be helpful to anyone looking for more information on this, but I am uncertain about the redirect target.
Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 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 Nomination withdrawn. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Inter-Domain Management

Joint Inter-Domain Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I mistakenly put this up for PROD not spotting that it had been prodded before. I’m bringing it to AfD as I can’t see anything to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article and added RS. This collaboration resulted in a standard, and a simple
WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion are preferred for verifiable material. One alternative is a merge to X/Open, the co-originator of the JIDM, or The Open Group, the ones who published the spec. In any case, I do not recommend deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw. With thanks to @Mark viking: I’d like to withdraw this nomination.Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce B. Jefferson

Bruce B. Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don’t think this person passes
WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this one-sentence mention in the Chicago Tribune, but nothing else. Lack of mention means the article fails
talk) 02:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I looked on Newspapers.com and JSTOR as a WP:BEFORE to see if I could find anything; there was nothing on him. On Google, I mainly found social media and blogs. Does not meet criteria for
WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:WAWARD) 01:18, 26 October 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 Babylon 5 characters. Clear consensus to get rid of this article but not whether a deletion is the best way to go about this, nor is it clear whether the content could be reused. Going for a redirect to satisfy both the desire to remove the article and the possibility that the content could be reused elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulkesh

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

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

It really pains me to go after content from my favorite series, but despite being a B5 fanboy... this fails
WP:FICTION by a long shot. But in fact the readers will be better served not seeing this poor entry here, when they can see a much better one at https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Ulkesh anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 24 October 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} 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters as non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Babylon 5 characters, as the topic is not notable, yet the content can be placed into the list similarly to the situation with Valen. Utopes (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC) (I guess that "Merge" isn't considered as an alternative, even though it's suggested in the closing? Ah well... Utopes (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the List of Babylon 5 characters and see whether you think moving any content would be suitable? There are entries on the list that also do not meet the notability guidelines to be a standalone article, yet information is still present under the respective entries. I'm not familiar with the series myself, but I feel like moving information on this topic to a general list of characters would probably be the best course of action. Unless of course it turns out that most of the entries aren't notable, then the list itself could possibly go through AfD. I don't have an opinion on that matter as of now. Utopes (talk) 00:46, 26 October 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. With the caveat that undeletion and subsequent redirecting can be asked for at
WP:REFUND if people need the content for a broader list article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Colonial Viper

Colonial Viper (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)

Seems to fail
WP:NFICTION. Minor coverage of a single incident involving toy recalls. There are mentions in passing out there on the web, mostly toy ads or niche reviews on blogs etc. In the books it's not much better. An Analytical Guide to Television's Battlestar Galactica [38] mentions it eight times, but all are in passing, 6 times while recalling various plots (episode stories), one sentence that there were toys, and another one about the design change in comic books. Similar mentions in passing occur in So Say We All: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Battlestar Galactica ([39]) - four mentions, nothing substantial. Nothing else I saw had more than 1-2 similar mentions. Scholarly sources are even worse, 2-3 mentions at best like from [40] "USAF pilots disliked the official name and instead called the F-16 the “Viper,” apparently because it recalled “Colonial Viper,” the name of a fighter spacecraft on the 1978 TV show Battlestar Galactica." Sorry, but this is not enough to show significance in the real world, a few trivial facts spread around a bunch of sources does not constitute 'significant coverage' as requested by GNG. But fret not, all this old fancruft can safely exist at https://galactica.fandom.com/wiki/Viper - feel free to transwikify (copy) anything that's not already there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 24 October 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} 01:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/redirect The Air Force thing, as well as the Battlestar Galactica spacecraft surviving AfD, makes me feel like there is at least enough notability to justify an entry in a hypothetical list, like List of Battlestar Galactica spacecraft. I think perhaps such a list should be created, and this merged into it. Otherwise, I am also fine with deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that such a list would be ok. If anyone wants to create it? Perhaps the BG fans from the Article Rescue Squadron? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Insufficient sourcing to pass GNG. TTN (talk) 17:20, 25 October 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) 01:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Vatcher

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

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

Does not meet
WP:NPOL. The first ref is a opinion piece written by the subject. Beyond that, there is a little local routine coverage expected of any municipal election candidate. MB 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MB 01:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for council are absolutely never notable for such, and he has no other claim to notability. This is a new low in how unnoable a politician is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic fails WP:NPOL. While I wouldn't call this a "new low" per se, I do agree with John Pack Lambert. Utopes (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidate for the 2018 Peel Region municipal elections, Ontario. No claim of national or international coverage of the subject or anything else that would make the subject more notable than other situated candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not notable just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, Peel Regional Council is a level of office at which even winning a seat would still not have made him "inherently" notable even if he had won, and two pieces of
WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above, but with the caveat that the original creator of the article be offered the article code to take with them to another service or their personal web hosting service. It's an otherwise well written biography, certainly better than some quasi-notable or even notable biographies. So, consider my !vote to be delete with a short-term (up to 30 days) draftify allowing the article creator to take the article elsewhere.Doug Mehus (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Living BLP(wait, that's redundant), no sources. Even if that's fixed, he's still non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 27 October 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 per nominator — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus MC

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

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

The article is about a Minecraft server that was created in October 2019. Off the bat, this topic is most certainly too new per
WP:SUSTAINED to be an article. However, notability has also not been established, and the article does not cite any sources. I'm probably not in the right circle to make an opinion on notability, so I wanted to run it by others instead of hastily PRODding it. Notability seems extremely unlikely, but Minecraft servers have had articles. Utopes (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete under criterion A7 (non-notable web content). Absolutely not notable, and based on the creator's contributions, they're one of the server's owners.
talk) 00:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability, cannot find significant coverage to establish meeting
the general notability guideline --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article has zero references and thus establishes no notability. Fails
WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 12:30, 24 October 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.