Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kimura

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

Subject ultimately fails

WP:NHOCKEY due to the fact that neither the Japan Ice Hockey League and Asia League Ice Hockey is listed within NHOCKEY's notability criteria. While he did play for the Japan national team he did so in a World Championship qualifier and not in the actual World Championship itself, therefore failing #6. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete There are no sources that look plausibly reliable, independent, and significant about this player. Rockphed (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article are just stats databases and do not establish notability. I can find his hockey card for sale and this passing mention in a local community newspaper but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet either
WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As noted fails notability guidelines. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that despite this team's league being a professional league, there's still insufficient sourcing to meet

WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Wakunaga Leolic

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

Fails

WP:NTEAM Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: The Japan Handball League is a professional league. At the JHL article was written that it is an non-professional league, but this was wrong. I corrected it and add a source. So all teams of the JHL are important. -Malo95 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only (even possibly) reliable, independent source I could find is book. I am not sure if it is significant since I can't actually get access to it. There might be more sources in Japanese, but I can't read Japanese. Everything else looks like confirmation that the club exists without actually giving it any treatment. Rockphed (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here as with Rockphed in my searches, and I also can't access that book so I can't verify whether it's a
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 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) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Tube

)

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

still not a notable youtuber, the sources that were provided are either not independent coverage or not reliable (blogs that aren't otherwise rs) and interviews. See also the previous AFD Praxidicae (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. The Times article is RS and, as far as I can tell without paying to read it all, is not purely an interview. The Evening Standard article looks likewise and, unless we think that Harriet Brewis is HBomberguy in disguise (which seems unlikely given that she has what looks to be a genuine Twitter account), then it seems to be independent. The Vox review looks independent too. This does seem like we have scraped over the line of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would like to see the use of Twitter as a reference removed but based on what is good here I think it is good enough to keep and work on improving further. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following clarification of the independence of the references I'm switching from weak keep to keep. There are still issues to resolve here but I think this is safe for basic notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some pretty weak sourcing, and lots of really crap sourcing.
talk) 23:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep per DanielRigal's !vote above. I don't like using Twitter as a source, either, but that looks to be more a matter for ordinary editing to fix. (
primary sources, but that's beside the point in the present case.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Editing to strike the adjective. After taking another chance to evaluate the sources, I don't think my "keep" !vote needs to be qualified. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention in the news, just for fun. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (as re-creator): the nominator's rationale is bizarre. What about The Times or Vox is not reliable? I have read the full Times source
WP:BASIC). I find it quite bizarre that I wrote a lengthy rationale here justifying notability and then the nominator has ignored all of it in favour of unsubstantiated assertion that all of the sources are "not independent coverage or not reliable". I repeat: what of The Times or Vox? They also say "see the previous AfD" but that's something I mentioned—five of the seven sources that I present for notability have been released since that AfD. I note that XOR'easter also believes interviews can count towards notability, something I wanted to avoid as I know it's a disputed point, but if we agree with that premise then indeed the Evening Standard and BBC Radio sources provided very strong additional evidence of notability. — Bilorv (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but improve: the information and sources are there. He’s also done stage acting in some notable productions, stand-up, and writing (for HuffPost UK and The Independent), which could be incorporated as well. Also minimal use of primary sources, like for birthdays, is fine so long as there are enough secondary/tertiary sources to prove notability — Starklinson, 3 September 2019

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 10

)

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

Declined PROD (not originally by me). But I agree that this isn't a sufficiently interesting number to have an article for. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Irrational numbers would seem not to favor this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers. This number has no special significance in mathematics, and no special properties distinct from other composite square roots. Its only cultural significance is (if one believes what is written in this article) as a bad and unsourced approximation to $π$ , much worse than some of the ancient approximations described in Approximations of π and not even mentioned among the many many approximations described in that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have heard the bit about it being an ancient approximation to $π$ , and as far as $π$ lore goes it can probably be sourced, but that's not enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This content would not be much use in writing about where and by whom the hemibel is used. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also read about its use in approximating $π$ , but as it's currently unsourced, there is no need for a merger. This one property alone doesn't seem enough for an article; I'm also not aware of any major formulas where this number appears. ComplexRational (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we do not need to have articles on square roots of individual numbers. Vorbee (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Quadratic integer #Square root of integers~~. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now Square_root#Square_roots_of_positive_integers to avoid deletionst paroxysms in Quadratic integer. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, unless this could be merged with something related. Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapefruit17: see above – the target went missing due to edit warring; it was not my fault. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, I find this number to be very interesting, but it's clearly not notable. Our readers could find the value faster on a calculator than searching for it here. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not need entire articles for specific numbers, unless those numbers are somehow significant. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe move the content to either a
list of square roots or a list of approximations of pi, but only if sourcing can be found. I think a similar test for irrational numbers to the one for integers in Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) should be devised. At least the "3 interesting, unrelated properties" should be applied. Rockphed (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- list of square roots is now only a redirect. And before it was a redirect, it was simply a list of a few articles about square roots. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. It can have the structure of other similar articles like
square root of five with proof of irrationality, continued fraction expansion, geometric, trigonometric and even logarithmic aspects and identities, etc.--185.53.199.210 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Júlio César Alves

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

Per

redirect but, as it stands, the article does not meet our inclusion criteria. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BLP1E, perhaps a redirect if the events themselves justify a future article on the doping scandal (should it be considered one, I have no view on that). Guy (Help!) 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Undecided as it is difficult for me to see whether this person is notable for more than the one event and if there was a legal decision on the case, also because Júlio César Alves is a super common name and I do not know how to verify which further sources refer to the same person. There is a Júlio César Alves Ferreira who is director of a health related organization Prohab.[1] I wouldn't see where else than in the Roberto Carlos article the event could be mentioned (and I would have guessed fans would make sure it could not survive there but I was wrong). I would say there should be an article Doping in Brazil and now requested it like there are Doping in the United States, Doping in Russia, Doping in China. As I saw, the author of one of the sources here even has his own article as doping expert in which the report involving Júlio César Alves is mentioned. (Hajo Seppelt#Other reports) Omikroergosum (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – Levivich 04:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Giant Snowman 10:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and
WP:BLPCRIME to mention this individual there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:BLP1E. Barca (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BLP1E. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 7 September 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.

Brios

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion 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 by Jimfbleak per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails

WP:BAND; no reliable sources discussing this band appear to exist. PROD objected by creator. ComplexRational (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Rajib Karmakar

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

The references appear to me mainly mentions, with a few press releases put in. The page was deleted before and now restored. Zinzhanglee (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 2 September 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. Seems like the consensus indicates that the sources are not adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanha Jafrin

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

Non-notable actress. Of the four cited sources, three are variations on a press release saying a movie is 90% complete. Searches found no indication that it was ever completed or released. The fourth is about a movie that was eventually released in 2017, but there's scant evidence that it is notable, and the only Tanha in it is Tanha Mousumi (not Jafrin). Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found nothing in reliable sources for Tanha Jafrin and nothing deeper for Tanha Mousumi than the cast list for the aforementioned 2017 movie. Comprehensively fails to meet any notability guideline. Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 08:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 08:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 08:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at
(T) 11:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The references in the two language versions are the same. The bn.wikipedia reference list only looks longer because it repeats the same link to two regurgitations of a press release. The sole Google News hit for "তানহা জাফরিন" [Tanha Jafrin/Zafrin] is a trivial mention in a "what's on TV tonight" article. There are eleven Google News hits for "তানহা মৌমাছি" [Tanha Mousumi], but nothing deeper than a cast list or photo caption, and nothing equating Jafrin with Mousumi. In my experience of Bangladeshi entertainment coverage, if Mousumi were a new name for Jafrin (married name, return to maiden name, stage name, etc.) the sources would say so. There's also a strong tendency for the press to refer back to an actor's debut work and/or their most recent work ("so-and-so, who first came into prominence in such-and-such" or "so-and-so recently gained popularity for such-and-such"), but nothing in the Mousumi coverage ties back to the work of Jafrin. Combining the two is

original research. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete seems to be mainly unverifiable with the possible confusion of two different actresses, at the least it is unclear and therefore deletion is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
WP:NACTOR - I couldn't even find listings for her films (although language may have played a part there, but usually if foreign films are at all notable even a search in English will turn up something) - Epinoia (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. The article was extensively reworked after the last relist. Unfortunately, there wasn't any real evaluation of the new version. I'll go with keep rather than NC, but I'll also add the proviso that if anybody still thinks this isn't good, feel free to bring it back for another nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Brent Bill

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

No references in RS I can find, fails

WP:AUTHOR. Article has also been extensively edited by an editor whose username certainly implies a COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t even make a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline A7, but the number of books is probably a claim to notability. However, as they don't have appeared to garnered any critical attention, fails
WP:GNG is also failed of course. Hug^syrup 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep as Worldcat shows 2600 library holdings which indicates that there should be coverage such as reviews offline if not online imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic argument to avoid:

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Sources must be verifiable, and if we're only assuming that they exist, they're not verifiable. Hug^syrup 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

- But, as usual, reviews have been found, so it is a reliable indicator Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The Quakers are a particular religious group. Reviews of books which they may consider significant may not reach the kind of media being searched. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four of his books have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly. [2] [3] [4] [5] Haukur (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here are reviews in Friends Journal. [6] [7] And a Quaker best-seller list: [8] This is only after a cursory search. Haukur (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning to keep but I'd like to see some proper sourcing in the article before I close as such.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the boss. I rewrote the article using the sources above and several more. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question does anyone know of any other articles about authors that look like this one? It looks like a publisher’s promo leaf or the back cover of a potboiler. Is notability usually supported by review in these publications? Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great question. The book reviews make the case for "sustained critical attention" as per
WP:AUTHOR. But I agree that this list of books with summarized reviews isn't a great style for an engaging article. The problem with authors that are notable but not super notable is that we often lack the kind of sources that we would ideally like - sources that look at the author's corpus as a whole rather than just dealing with one book at a time. But even with just the sources we have here it would be possible to create a more readable article. For an article based principally on book reviews but worked into more coherent prose I've recently worked on Tom Kratman. And then there's Morag Hood (author) which is particularly difficult because there I've not been able to find a single negative comment in any review of her books – I fear that this makes the article on her look like something a publisher might compile. (To be fair, Hood is an excellent author and I can't think of anything negative to say about her books either.) In Bill's case we at least have a number of critical comments. Oh, and my most recent creation is Camille Bacon-Smith which I think isn't so bad even though it's based almost entirely on book reviews. I'd still be grateful for any ideas on how to improve these articles. Haukur (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for your work on improving this Haukur. I’m not really convinced that the subject of the article is notable, but it’s marginal, and if the consensus is to keep that’s fine. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Adams

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

Fails

WP:GNG. A google search further confirmed this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no evidence he's played beyond the Baltimore metro area, thus failing
WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails both
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next Door (Billy Peterson and David Hazeltine album)

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

Fails

WP:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I would normally prefer a redirect for non-notable albums like this one, but I agree with the nominator that a redirect does not work for an album released by two individually notable artists. I think deletion is the best option here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 7 September 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. Sandstein 10:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huzoor Muhad’dith e Kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi

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

The problem may relate to spelling. For instance, I can't find this "Shari' Council". And I can't figure out what his name is, which again is probably a spelling issue not helped by the name in the lead not matching the title. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure whether HamariWeb is considered a
talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no
reliable sources, and really no claim of notability at all save his speaking to large crowds in a very large country. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I exhausted my patience with such titles over a decade ago. Is there any chance that someone familiar with the subject's culture could tell us what his name is, without surrounding it with honorifics?
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That would be Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi.

talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails
WP:GNG and ow there are thousands of Islamic scholars not clear how the subject is notable and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Liberation Entertainment

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

None of the sources mentioned in the article, nor any sources I could find myself, help this subject meet

in-depth, unreliable or not secondary. MrClog (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, now defunct, film distribution company - some of the films listed in the Liberation Entertainment article, for example The Old Curiosity Shop (1984 film), have recently been nominated for AfD, but they were produced by Burbank Animation Studios and are listed in that article - the Liberation Entertainment article says their film library was sold to Camelot Entertainment, but the Camelot Entertainment Group article does not mention Liberation Entertainment - Epinoia (talk) 01:32, 9 September 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. Redirect at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brocks Hill Primary School

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

Does not meet

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME as it is a primary school with no sources (as of now). A merge could be possible if contents are added. William2001^(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to suggesting notability, and we do not keep articles for sub-secondary schools unless they are clearly and without dispute notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above there is nothing to suggest this school has the notability that would be needed for it to merit an article. Moreover much of the content seems trivial. Dunarc (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NewtonX, Inc.

NewtonX, 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)

An unremarkable startup. Sourcing is in passing and / or
WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NewtonX, Inc. article's citations include
WP:GNG). desmay (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Desmay: The Tech Crunch and VentureBeat sources look good; however, the Inc. article only mention NewtonX in a single sentence, and the paragraph about NewtonX in the Forbes article is written by one of the company's co-founders. Do you really think this is enough to pass NCORP? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've acknolwedged that "the
WP:ORGCRIT. desmay (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The criteria for notability for companies/organization is fully documented in
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The company raised twelve million dollars in Series A funding alone, a fact that has been reported in various media sources, such as TC and VB. Eliko007 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raising funding isn't a notability criteria and never will be. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about about a classic startup that fails
WP:CORPDEPTH as the majority of the references are driven by press releases. 8 of the 15 state twelve million dollars in Series A funding. Of the remaining seven, one is non-rs, another one is initial funding, leaving two. One of remaining, the Inc article is a name drop for the company, the remaining is a magazine that markets startups and other general run of the mill business news. Very very poor sourcing. There is no secondary sources whatsoever, they are all primary, run of the mill business news. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company. All of the sourcing for the article are from reliable sources and none of them are press releases. Knox490 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
Tech Crunch, VentureBeat, Forbes and Inc. top tier business publications are not easy publications to be noted by. They are major business publications which serve as gatekeepers in terms of what business news is important. The reason why these major publications are covering NewtonX is that it is using cutting technology, namely artificial intelligence (AI) to find experts. And like it or not, we live in technological age where experts have a huge influence on the world and are often in short supply. AI is very important right now and starting to make dramatic results already (For example, AI right can now can shift through stacks of resumes and spit out a select few select resumes of candidates. Recently, a large truck of beer was driven from city to city by a driverless truck). AI is starting to be a big disruptor and game changer and that is why $15M of funding recently went to Newton X. Frankly, even though I took many computer and information systems management courses, the pace of success in AI applications has even surprised me.Knox490 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Being top tier doesn't indicate the article is notable and every device and piece of software now being developed on the planet is now using some form of AI either for development or in production. The
Tech Crunch is reporting 12million in funding, same as the other 8, so it is press release and non-RS. VentureBeat is the same. From Forbes it states Our company grew in its first year That is not independent and is non-RS. The last Inc.
is a name drop. Hardly the gatekeepers.

scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company.

The VentureBeat article indicates: "What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. Incumbent market research firms, consulting firms, and expert networks used to rely on preexisting pools of expert consultants,” he said. “We believe NewtonX is turning this model on its head by automating custom searches to recruit the best experts in real time for any given client request and, in doing so, is capable of transforming multiple industries."[14]

One of NewtonX's owners essentially said, "its proprietary speech-to-text software enables it to deliver surveys and reports at twice the speed and half the cost of traditional panels".[15]

The funding, technology and news coverage point to NewtonX being a transformational company. Wikipedia should create articles on transformational companies such as NewtonX.Knox490 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The TechCrunch article is based on an interview with Chastel and fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Entirely promotional and not a single reference (including the ones mentioned above) meet the criteria for establishing notability, nor am I able to locate a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The article passes
WP:GNG; a simple Google search alone provides 227,000 results for NewtonX. [16] There are plenty more sources about this company available than what are currently present in the article.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Hey
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Looks like your typical (i.e. non-notable) early stage tech startup. I don't put much weight in TechCrunch or VentureBeat. They're
WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: This article passes
WP:RUBBISH. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Response Your admission that not "any single one of these articles alone" meets the criteria for establishing notability essentially translates to your agreement that according to our own guidelines this topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~. Come on people, learn how to recognize press releases when they bite you on the nose. Knox490 claims, above, that the Venture Beat article is original writing, not a press release, and cites this quote: What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. That same line was used by Pulse 2.0, by VC News Daily, by Built in NYC, etc. Perhaps all those publications just happened to think of that sentence on their own? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I didn't remember that I'd !voted already in this AfD, so striking the duplicate. The comment still holds, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 10 September 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) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshilla

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

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

Fails
WP:RS with significant coverage. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
run of the mill company. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 22:06, 8 September 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 by nominator (via blanking) after I presented evidence that the sources supported redirecting it to a related topic rather than keeping it. For disclosure's sake, I was technically a voter in the discussion, but the nominator blanked this discussion and implemented the redirect themself after I suggested that option, so they obviously have no objection to just closing this. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KVDO-TV

KVDO-TV (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; no references Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a
~~newspapers.com search, I got 1,927 hits for "KVDO Corpus Christi", which means there's more than enough coverage to salvage this with.~~ Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: On second thought, this should be a redirect to KIII. One of the sources I've now found really clarifies the actual situation much better than the article did, and despite the several years that had passed between the death of KVDO in 1957 and the launch of the still extant KIII in 1964, KIII was essentially a revival of KVDO rather than a genuinely new station — although it took a while, KIII's launch flowed directly out of KVDO's efforts to revive itself on a VHF channel after failing on UHF, and KIII's call sign was even supposed to be KVDO until its owners decided to start fresh with a new call sign. So KVDO should really be treated as a section within the overall history of KIII rather than a standalone topic of its own, because they're ultimately phases within the history of the same TV station rather than distinct TV stations. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection if someone wants to move the existing article on the 2017 event to this title; that doesn't require admin action. RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CVB Snooker Challenge

CVB Snooker Challenge (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 needed, series article for an event that happened once (and there is no sign that it will happen again. 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge already exists for the event, no need for two articles about one event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of cue sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete this article, but then Move 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge over top of this. If it happened one time and we consider it a notable event, we don’t need two articles. But why numerate it by year if it happened once? This would be the simpler title for that article. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A "China v Britain Snooker Challenge" was announced for 2018: https://theoldgreenbaize.com/2018/08/21/world-snooker-to-host-its-own-ryder-cup-event-later-this-year/ but never took place. A note about this could perhaps be added to the article, but currently there has only been one edition. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 CVB Snooker Challenge, no need for two articles about one event. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:54, 8 September 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) 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opekkha (2018 film)

Opekkha (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Didn't won any award, have no review from any independent source & have no independent, significant covarage. 1st one is a primary source (interview), 2nd & 3rd one is interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article. I also tried with google but found nothing. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam created by the movie's editor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no notable film, Fails
(T) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Spam. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement and spam ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:NFILM, not notable - MA Javadi (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H.Q. School System

H.Q. School System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:09, 9 September 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) 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austrey School

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

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

No independent source found for this for-profit school in Pakistan, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources about this school. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:11, 9 September 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) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Way School System

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Right Way School System

Articles for deletion/The Right Way School System (2nd nomination)

The Right Way School System (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
very small and ordinary parochial school. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:13, 9 September 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) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Grammar High School

Stars Grammar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've been unable to find any reliable, independent sources about the school. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 9 September 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) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary Montessori System High School

Elementary Montessori System High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of sourcing leads to a failure of notability. A
WP:MILL school with no evidence. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:16, 9 September 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) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concept School of Learning

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Concept School of Learning

Articles for deletion/Concept School of Learning (2nd nomination)

Concept School of Learning (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search does not show enough
Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet
WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:17, 9 September 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) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel "Gabe" Azoulay

Gabriel "Gabe" Azoulay (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 an individual that does not meet
reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 of the 8 sources are interviews (which do not contribute toward notability) in non-reliable sources, and the remaining 3 sources are generic book results (Google Books, Amazon, Goodreads). A quick Web search does not indicate there is anything better to be found. The text reads like a resume and does not describe anything notable about the subject, just regular business activities. Does not satisfy
WP:NCORP. The self-published books do not lend weight to notability in this instance. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete notability is not shown through interviews and generaic sales listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2019

Miss Intercontinental 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)

The article did not meet the notability guidelines as per
WP:GNG
. The mother article had been recreated even with another title ("pageant" was added in the title) and deleted many times as evidenced by the links provided below:

Miss Intercontinental Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Intercontinental_Pageant&action=edit&redlink=1

Miss Intercontinental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Intercontinental

NOTE: Also, nominating for deletion: Miss Intercontinental 2018

--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per previous AfDs - notability not established, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per
WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 04:26, 9 September 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. Editors disagree on the significance of retiring a jersey number. Since it's done by the player's own team, is it really a "well-known and significant award or honor". No agreement on that. I guess naming the team's mascot after a player falls under the same umbrella. I'm waffling between closing this as keep and NC, but here's clearly no consensus to delete, so I'm not going to worry about that too much. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Erhardt

Trevor Erhardt (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 seems to fail
WP:NHOCKEY as he played 87 games in the Eishockey-Bundesliga and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also never played international hockey in order to pass #6. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a player whose jersey number has been retired, failing the "number of games" criteria doesn't make him non-notable. "Legendary" according to all of the first couple of news articles I could find. picture of his retired number. All-time top scorer of Frankfurt Lions for more than 20 years [17], 86 goals and 114 assists in 45 matches. At the very very least worth a redirect to Frankfurt Lions or Löwen Frankfurt. —Kusma (t·c) 13:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't he actually meet
WP:NHOCKEY #3? —Kusma (t·c) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per accomplishments in Hockey..if consensus is he does not meet
WP:ANYBIO (a well known honor or award being his retired #27 Jersey). The Mining Gazette Trevor, is regarded as one of the all-time fan favorites in Frankfurt, Germany, hockey lore. The Calgary native played there for both Eintracht and ESC Frankfurt. His retired number 27 now hangs from the rafters in Eissporthalle Frankfurt Ice Arena. He also played for Team Canada in the 1988-89 Spengler Cup where he faced an American team in the final who were bolstered by local legend Mark Maroste. Many foreign language sources exist. Frankfurter Neue Presse, Referred to as Frankfurt ice hockey legend Trevor Erhardt. in another Franfurter Neue Presse article. There is SIGCOV, it is just in Europress. He has a German Wikipedia page as well. Wm335td (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable as discussed above. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the retired jersey does not meet anybio #1 "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor," as it comes from his own team and this is a tradition in a lot of clubs to honour their own players so if we follow that logic that would mean that every player in any club in any sport that has had his jersey retired would automatically meet this criteria. The criteria for a lot of sports are not very stringent and he fails as is but at the top of
WP:GNG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources provided; argument for ANYBIO#1 is unpersuasive, as it is not determined by independent actors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They named their mascot after him, if anybody doubts this is one of this club's most significant players. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some relevant points to keep, let's see if the GNG is met instead of NHOCKEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject meets
WP:GNG when considering the German-language sources available. Flibirigit (talk) 13:58, 7 September 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) 17:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2018

Miss Intercontinental 2018 (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 did not meet the notability guidelines as per
WP:GNG
. The mother article had been recreated even with another title ("pageant" was added in the title) and deleted many times as evidenced by the links provided below:

Miss Intercontinental Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Intercontinental_Pageant&action=edit&redlink=1

Miss Intercontinental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Intercontinental

NOTE: Also, nominating for deletion: Miss Intercontinental 2019

--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pageant. ApprenticeFan work 23:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per previous AfDs - notability not established, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per
WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 04:28, 9 September 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. Sandstein 10:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 King Air 350 crash

2019 King Air 350 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While sad, and the subject of routine news reporting, this is not an event likely to have ongoing significance or receive sustained coverage. Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Hug^syrup 13:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of any lasting significance to this accident, just another weather-related crash, one of hundreds for this aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but
WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least wait and see - the incident made international news, and while not all King Air crashes with fatalities will necessarily be notable, the international scope of this accident (a New Zealand couple perished) may lead to this incident receiving ongoing coverage. It already passes
WP:GNG, just need to wait and see if it's lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment What's the difference between this crash and a medevac crash here [18] which doesn't have an article?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This crash received international news and is still continuing to receive coverage [19] while yours was a local general aviation crash of a Piper which barely scrapes by
WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
See also [20], which is from 12 hours ago. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Still covered by
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

I'm really not so sure. Everyone's claiming this is routine, but coverage is continuing especially in local media, and it's currently the 8th deadliest crash of 2019 worldwide and had more fatalities than the Essendon crash. I'm just not sure why people are coming to the conclusion this is "common" or why we would be in a rush to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Not significant relative to other light aircraft crashes, no otherwise-notable persons involved. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:AIRCRASH: light aircraft, no notable death, no procedure change.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not tragic, but non-notable run of the mill everyday tragedy--Petebutt (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This type of accident is quite common and non notable. The chance of this crash changing any procedures is very small. - Samf4u (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nine people dying in a medevac aircraft crash (themselves pretty rare) seems to me to be pretty notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I flew as a medevac pilot for many years and actually medevac flights are high risk and accidents on them are very common, even
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Would you think a road ambulance accident would be worthy of an article? Those happen on a daily basis in North America. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
With nine deaths? Really? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Please keep in mind
WP:RAPID. The crash just happened and there is international coverage of the event. There is still news coming out on fatalities and cause. However, these incidents are unfortunately common and so far, no notability has been established with this particular crash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs
)

The above discussion is preserved as an 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) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Baradaran

Hamed Baradaran (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. deleted in fawiki (AfD link). ARASH PT talk 13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Thank you to ARASH PT for providing the useful link of AfD in Farsi Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and his bio on Farsi Wikipedia which is his native language has been deleted several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by صدیق صبري (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Southwood

Luke Southwood (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)

Previously deleted by PROD. Fails
fully-professional league - his two first-team appearances for Accies were for their U21 team in the Challenge Cup). Giant Snowman 12:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale per criteria of
fully-professional league Wm335td (talk) 19:34, 4 September 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) 17:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Capital

Tribe Capital (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 I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References appear to be based on company announcements failing
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: does not meet
WP:NORG; just a directory listing on an unremarkable venture fund. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per rationale given above.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:50, 4 September 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) 12:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesane Casino

Lesane Casino (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 reliable sources in the article (thefamouspeople.com obviously doesn't count) and I can find absolutely nothing about the subject in any reliable source. Therefore fails
WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non notable musician. Fails GNG and
talk) 11:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per rationale given above.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:49, 4 September 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. Multiple changes to Keep per wp:HEY work done. The article has also tailored itself to be a bit clearer about its primary purpose
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp 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)

The page is not clear on the subject: the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. None of the sources "provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". Source #1 (British Museum) is more like a primary source - it basically just verifies "yup, this exists" - no suggestion of notability there. Sources #2, #4, #5 are about the BBC programme - no notability of the painting there (and certainly none of the etching or print). Source #3 (Tate) is again more a library reference than a secondary source (and again no verification of the claim that the print is notable, and again - why would the painting be notable even if the print was?). Notability template has been up for two weeks - it's time to discuss this properly.
CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Week keep or Merge to Thomas Gainsborough (Ideally we should have a List of works by Thomas Gainsborough one day). Not seeing any discussion of this work beyond a sentence that it existed and another that it was recently forged. While many artworks are independently notable, such sub-stubs should not be treated any different that yellow-page like company entries or stats-only sport bios. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC) PS. Changed to week keep or merge per Eastmain's source which is indeed longer than 1-2 sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The description at https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gainsborough-landscape-with-gipsies-n05845 seems reasonably in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What conclusions do you draw from this, if any? It seems we must first agree on what subject should the article focus on? The print is the only item Tate characterises as "famous". And even if we do agree to focus the article on the print I would like to see a more "regular" source confirming that notability (if nothing else making our article not rely on a single source) - if it really is famous, that should not be hard to confirm (maybe in scholarly works on Gainsborough?)
CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, well sourced (British Museum, Tate, Fake or Fortune? production), an interesting example of Gainsborough's work. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning the existence of the article subject; I am questioning its notability (at least given the five sources present). And I am pointing out the article can't decide whether it is about the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. In that light, could I ask you to revisit your statement? Cheers
CapnZapp (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It's about all of the topics related to the painting. The museum sources seem to hold up the nobility, and the television show episode (which leads off the season) affirms its notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't consider having a museum page or inclusion on Fake or Fortune to establish notability. But let's await further discussion. Cheers
CapnZapp (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Really, why not?
WP:PUBLISHED "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Merge to~~ Thomas Gainsborough or Keep - I don't think much of the nom - the subject is clearly Gainsborough's composition, in whatever form, which is fine. It would help if the print were uploaded to Commons. The BM info, taken from a book, would itself be enough to establish notability, so the nom is way out there. There certainly will be sufficient coverage in sources not online, and there is no requirement that coverage be online. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is no requirement for sources to be online and I have not suggested that there is. If you can provide good offline sources to establish notability then this AfD has succeeded where the Notability template failed. Cheers
CapnZapp (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability for works of art is usually accepted as one good source. Here there are three, kind of a stretch to even nominate it. question:Was it fake or fortune? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been considerably expanded (3 Sept) & I've changed to firm keep above. Time to withdraw the nom really. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 4 September 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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. Under-weighting numerous spa votes which were generally light in WP:PAG based arguments. Based on the depth of analysis and policy/guideline based points in the discussion, consensus favors deletion.
WP:DRV is <<< that away. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Billion Surprise Toys

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
csp
|username}}.

Billion Surprise Toys (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:UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - nom is probably right about UPE, but since I'm not in a position to judge on that, I'm focusing just on notability. I've also removed 1/3 of the "sources" (marketing links) to help in nugget picking. To my shock, I think it might just make it - newsweek and the verge both have a sufficient amount on it to satisfy SigCov, and are both independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just barely makes notability; the earworm songs and large amount of subscribers do clinch
chatter) 02:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete there is no criteria on the Wikipedia to meet notability based on the amount of subscribers, if there is not significant coverage it fails the general notability. The news is nothing about the business but only about a video for which a page can be attempted but definitely not about the company without major coverage in the news. Salt it 157.37.227.176 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)— 157.37.227.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Billion surprise toys is a popular kids brand like - ChuChutv. VfD has problems, but simply deleting it isn't the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC) — 103.210.40.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, to establish notability only brief or routine coverage is not enough, as
WP:UPE, it gives an another reason that the creator has failed to disclose paid contributions, so it should be definitely deleted. 157.37.183.89 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)— 157.37.183.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Delete - A search shows nothing to help the subject meet
WP:DEPTH is not there. The coverage of company appears to be either primary or fringe. 39.36.134.11 (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)— 39.36.134.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Keep Mentioned sufficient reference links to reliable resources. This article should sustain. §monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.165.235 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — 27.97.165.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep. After Nosebagbear's cleanup I think that there might be enough media coverage to meet notability requirements. Greyjoy^talk 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Coverage is not for the company but it for the song and really needs much indepth coverage to meet
WP:UPE. USER:MER-C is one of the specialized in handling UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree with Greyjoy’s statement. This article has enough media coverage from popular websites.TimberWoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.138.146 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — 49.15.138.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment- After going through all sources, it doesn't seems that company has garnered news, most of the coverage is only because of controversial Johny Johny Yes Papa version of Gangnam style and really couldn't find anything significant for the company. The video has been a part of internet meme. Meeanaya (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there a particular set of guidelines to apply to check the notability of a YouTube channel?
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

take a look at
WP:NYOUTUBE - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails
WP:GNG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. None of the Keep !voters have been able to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, lots of !votes based on generic comments but no rebuttals to any of the Delete !votes or earnest debating has taken place. I too have been unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. If any Keep !voters wishes to post links to good references and debate their merit, I'm open to changing my mind. Until then, topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am ignoring the IP !votes entirely here, because it's not unlikely they are here as the result of off-wiki canvassing. However, I am not seeing consensus yet, because the sources provided in the very first "keep" !vote have not been discussed substantively.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with
WP:RS. Lets not waste more time on it. Meeanaya (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: The current references could be better. It sounds weird to me that we could consider the 25 Million subscribed youtube channel, a popular kids brand youtube.fandom with multiple language content production Multi-languages , also a music artist Amazon not notable. tuddic . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.223.190 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC) — 14.98.223.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Judging from the number of anon IP editors appearing out of nowhere for both sides, clearly this topic is receiving attention off-wiki. But our guidelines are very clear and I'm still waiting for *any* references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. To date, none have been produced.
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Answer is on Goolge itself. People needs to know about the channel and wiki is the best place for this explanation. Goolgle search results explain's this better GoogleSearch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vanamonde's previous relist argument has still not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't look like there is any deep and significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per
WP:REFBOMBING - lots of mentions, but nothing substantial - notability not established - popular does not mean notable - Epinoia (talk) 01:45, 10 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cooper (author)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Tom Cooper (author)

Articles for deletion/Tom Cooper (author) (2nd nomination)

Tom Cooper (author) (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)

Blatant self-promotional page written in an unencyclopedic format with no reliable sources. This was speedily deleted in December 2012 but the named author decided to unilaterally recreate it. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Tokyogirl79 at the first Afd. Nothing changed since then. Mathglot (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as worldcat shows 1600 library holdings which is an indicator of notability suggesting his works should have been reviewed and the external links shows one reliable source review in the Canadian military journal, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The results aren't all his; "Tom Cooper" isn't an uncommon name. Regardless of how many works he authored, we need reliable sources that talk about him, not ones merely written by him himself, as the Canadian military journal review is. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This kind of article is always a difficult one, since it seems there's a common sense argument for importance of the subject matter based on the large body of work he seems to have produced. Looking at this article I'm guessing he IS actually notable as an author. But the problem is that I'm guessing. I don't know. Wikipedia requires cited evidence of notability of an author, based on multiple secondary sources in which the author is the subject of that source. Until those sources are provided in this article, it is not eligible to remain in Wikipedia's main namespace. -Markeer 12:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per User:Markeer. If somebody thinks he's notable, they can come up with the sources to prove it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Space Shuttle missions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Space Shuttle missions

Timeline of Space Shuttle missions (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)

Covers same topic as List of Space Shuttle missions. I don't think it can be expanded into a useful timeline without duplicating the format/content of the list. Kees08 (Talk) 06:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge It's a useful alternate depiction of the same data. I'd suggest merging the timeline to List of Space Shuttle missions, possibly pre-collapsed. But an extra separate article seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Space Shuttle missions. I can see this content serving as visual supplement; as a timeline with explanations already exists at the target, it is merely an alternative presentation. ComplexRational (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Suppose I should be clear and say I do not support a merge, and prefer a deletion. The graphic is poor, and I do not think it can easily be fixed. Kees08 (Talk) 16:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:CHEAP. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:59, 4 September 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. Based on my reading of the discussion, it does not seem to be clear whether the topic meets the
WP:LISTN
is about lists.
Beyond the notability point, it seems like much of the discussion is whether Wikipedia:Set index articles should be allowed when a disambiguation page already exists and the list topic is primarily about a name similarity. Again, it seems like there are compelling arguments on either side (the arbitrariness of the inclusion criterium on the delete camp; the potential usefulness in lieu of having articles on each item and the existence and AFDs closed as keep on the keep side) without one overwhelmingly more convincing.
Some people have suggested that this is a problem with the guidelines about lists rather than this specific list and have proposed a discussion on them. A merge discussion with the dab page might also be a good idea. But as far as the scope of an AFD discussion is concerned, this is a "no consensus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes named McArthur

List of lakes named McArthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no coherence, or reader interest, in articles about unrelated lakes that happen to have "McArthur" or "MacArthurs" in their names. Does not meet
criteria for a standalone list, because there are no sources, there is no interest in the set of lakes named with a partial text string match, but all for completely different reasons, so randomly having extremely vague similarity. What is needed for readers, only, in Wikipedia, is a disambiguation page, which already exists, which is McArthur Lake (disambiguation). Note, this topic comes up because several of the past participating editors including myself are discussing criteria for articles about lakes at ongoing AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Terant. Doncram (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note, in the past, in the process of developing some editor(s) understanding about how Wikipedia works, and editing and/or moving articles during ongoing AFDs which somewhat confounded reasonable discussion and so on, i think, there were
standalone list-article duplicative to a disambiguation page and of no interest to any readers, not supported by any sources discussing the topic of the set of lakes which have similar names. Especially if all the members are named for completely different persons. This is NOT like a set-index article for ships named U.S.S. Constellation or whatever, where there is coherence and relatedness in the naming, in that the U.S. Navy re-employs a name for a new ship in honor of a past ship which has been retired or destroyed. These lakes are completely unrelated. --Doncram (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The dab page is quite sufficient for Wikipedia's needs. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dab page is sufficient. Daß Wölf 08:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if all the lakes were named for the same person, then we could redirect or merge to that person's article; but there is no indication of this (lakes in America and Australia...), so the article is a rag-bag of unrelated materials linked only by the accident of a shared surname. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer (although it might share some features with the latter per
WP:FIVE). Hence we have Washington Street and not List of streets named Washington Street listing all 5,000+ of them with co-ordinates for each.----Pontificalibus 08:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging editors who expressed view in two prior previous debates @DGG, Yngvadottir, Station1, Shhhnotsoloud, and Squeamish Ossifrage: any views on this? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec! Did you just selectively ping the editors who you guess will agree with you? What about
User:power~enwiki, User:Clarityfiend
,

Strong keep. This list is an example of what are known as Wikipedia:Set index articles, a list of lakes with the same or similar name, some of which have articles and some of which do not. Other examples are List of peaks named Signal, which describes a set of mountain peaks, and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise, which describes a set of ships. It is a list rather than a disambiguation page. The difference is:
The disambiguation page McArthur Lake lists all pages with names like "McArthur Lake", including lakes and other types of thing, giving minimal information but linking to the pages. It does not include anything that does not have an article

The set index List of lakes named McArthur gives a list of similar things (lakes) with names like "McArthur Lake", giving information about each entry whether or not the entry qualifies for a full article on its own. It provides a way of giving information about minor lakes that do not qualify for full articles, but where readers may be trying to find out about the lake.

Since this is such a classic example of a set index, I advise User:Doncram to take up the broader issue of whether all such articles should be deleted at the guideline level, Wikipedia talk:Set index articles, rather try to pick off the set index articles one by one. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I absolutely do not agree to fix everything else in the world before addressing this. We have here editors who have thought deeply about lakes and the need to draw connections between them or not. And at the ongoing AFD about Lac Terant I am hopeful about how there is some new understanding being created between lakes editors, including yourself.

It is a tangent to go off about all other list-articles. However the directions about set index articles are clear that the criteria for standalone lists must be met. There must be some coherence, some relationship between items, some coverage out there about the topic and/or some interest among readers about the topic. About lakes sharing a text-string in their naming, however, there exist no sources covering them as a set; there is no usefulness in linking from one article to another one.

Nonetheless, I do sympathize a bit to editors having confusion, because it is my understanding that the relatedness of things has been a battleground for more than a decade, if not for the entire life of Wikipedia. My understanding or not of the past history doesn't really matter, but honestly i understand that the concept of "set index articles" was invented to create a truce between incredibly persistent, bureaucratic editors bent on enforcing disambiguation page rules (which oddly disallow footnotes and annotation-type substantial information about items) vs.
wp:SHIPS
editors who wanted to maintain lists of ships named Constitution or whatever, which do in fact have some relatedness, and where there is clearly a need for a disambiguating function to be performed, which can in fact be performed by the "set index articles" then created. The SHIPS editors were allowed to include sensible annotations and other information in their "set index articles" and the disambiguation rules editors were willing to go away. What is written in guidance about set index articles doesn't report on this history, and is itself a battleground. I have myself tried to help rationalize this area, but there is only so much i can do. Sorry about that. :(

Somewhat helpful to you, perhaps, is
wp:CLNT
, an editing guideline about complementarity of categories, lists, and navigation templates, when covering sets of related things. One section of that guideline includes good commentary about stuff not being related enough:
"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the
See also
sections of the articles."

Please consider here about lakes, where IMHO we have completely unrelated things. It is not plausible that a reader interested in one lake in Saskatchewan named for a Canadian war veteran named Mcarthur, say, has any interest at all in finding their way to an article about a lake in Australia named for a completely different person with last name MacArthur who is known for being a birdwatcher or whatever. I think you would not want a "see also" link, or any other link, from one article to the other.

Again, I absolutely do not accept a requirement to fix everything else wrong in the world, before fixing this one thing that this AFD is about. I do note that you, did in the past put an extraordinary effort into creating articles about many of the lacs with McArthur in their names; you are uniquely informed and qualified to know that those articles have nothing at all to do with each other, except for the oddity of your own interest in writing about them, which IMHO was your reaction to being told in some of those AFDs that they were probably not notable. I heartily wish that you personally will choose to devote your future energy to addressing "more important" lakes rather than "less important" ones, and to establishing relationships that are "real" rather than "fake" (my wording may not be perfect). For example, I do thank and commend you for your constructive participation about Lac Terant, where you went on to create two related articles which really were needed and really are helpful (the one about the proposed national park and the one about the wildlife refuge area). Rather than, say, going off on conceivable tangents like how there might be a lake with a vaguely similar name in Tarrant County, Texas or whatever. You, me, everyone needs to think about how best to use our Wikipedia volunteer time, and we do better when we prioritize stuff more encyclopedic/important/interesting to readers over stuff less that way. Hope this helps, YMMV. --Doncram (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Points about battlegrounds proven by my editing at
wp:CLNT just now, to remove a possible silly implication. I.e. if a navigation template is not needed/helpful, that does not mean a category or list is needed. Which you, Aymatth2, just reverted
on "principle" presumably, I think because you perceive that battling in the guidance-type articles might serve your pre-determined(?) or oppositionally-motivated(?) goals here. I may be sorry to have pointed you to that guideline, which has been helpful to many in the past, oh well.

And, at McArthur Lake (Idaho), i removed some padding in the article about the reservoir which you Aymathy just reverted. IMHO you originally put excessive stuff into that article in order to "win" about keeping it, because, like I said, you were oppositionally motivated by being told that random lakes of that name were probably not notable. Okay, i will give up there, you can have your separate article overlapping excessively with the pre-existing article about the wildlife corridor of that name. Whatever, think about readers, or not, whatever. --Doncram (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the DAB McArthur Lake. I don't see any value in grouping these together beyond mere disambiguation, where it is based on nothing more than coincidence of name (not even shared eponym here). The two lists to which the sole keep !vote compares this have more basis for them than this purely superficial relationship, as name was driven by function in the former and shared as a tradition within a military organization in the latter. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a disambiguation page is quite different from a set index list. See Wikipedia:Set index articles. Disambiguation pages lead the reader to articles with similar names, while set index lists give information about similar things with similar names, none of which need have articles. A set index list, like other types of list, is useful in providing information about things that do not warrant stand-alone articles, while a disambiguation page only leads to articles about things that do. They are completely different. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn’t whether it’s a set index, the point is if that’s what it is it’s a bad set index, for reasons given above. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A set index list gives information about of a set of items of a specific type (lakes in this case) that share the same (or similar) name. They need not have anything else in common. The reader is looking for information about a lake called "Macarthur", and this list tries to provide it, even if they are looking for a lake that has no article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The disambiguation page rightly lists only 7 lakes, because only 7 lakes have articles, and a disambiguation page is a guide to navigating articles. The article discussed for deletion contains information (albeit minimal) about 15 lakes. Removing useful, easy-to-find information from the encyclopedia in the name of "coherence" doesn't seem sensible to me. Furthermore, opinions about sufficiency or reader interest have no evidence. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly valid set index (and actually a rather good one at that compared to many which for all practical purposes are disambiguation pages with a different template and without functionality of having links to the page listed in reports for remediation). older ≠ wiser 17:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Oh, in fact I do get what
wp:Daily Disambig, the internal "newspaper" about it). While for links to set index articles, there are no comparable mechanisms. I actually tried to change that in the past. Bkonrad, you have been involved with the concept of set index articles for more than 10 years, I am pretty sure. Are you sure you want to stick with your position here that no standards at all are to be required? --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Doncram, what makes you think I advocate for "no standards at all are to be required". Quite the contrary, I find this to be a rather good example of a set index page, unlike many others which for all appearances are nothing more than disambiguation pages with a different template. This page strikes me as what set indexes should be -- detailing content for which there is no stand-alone article but which share a name. older ≠ wiser 01:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought you would have something to say about where you would draw the line between notable vs. not, about how
wp:DIRECTORY applies or not. You comment in effect that the list "has information" and "is formatted nicely" (my wording), but you don't come to any judgement that differentiates this from a phone book. Or any subset of a phone book covering the people having the same name. IMHO we don't want to consider those as sets, at all, and we don't want to be told trivial information about the members. That's what atlases and phone books are for. Maybe you don't, as a practice, deal with notability at all, or provide substantial votes in AFDs? It's okay if you don't want to come to any larger judgment, but then I think your "Keep" !vote would better be retracted, and your comment should better be labelled as merely "Comment". --Doncram (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I'm concerned, this list is precisely what set indexes were meant to be. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons given by those wanting to keep this article, which seem good to me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ec): Replying to the above three !voters, I am sorry, I don't know how to be entirely polite about this. It's like you have seen a bauble--a formatted list of places about which the locations are known--and you are enchanted. Will you set no limits at all? Wikipedia is not a gazetteer about lakes. We can't be...at the AFD on Lac Terant, it has been pointed out that there are more than 500,000 lakes in Quebec, comparable to the number of persons in the province. There are too many individual lakes in the world, too many streets that have locations and names, too many individual ships and boats, too many individual persons, for us to create articles about each one of them. We should not want to, it is would not be encyclopedic, it would show no judgment, we would be acting like morons or computer bots if we did. As Pontificalibus states above, "Wikipedia is not a directory or gazetteer (although it might share some features with the latter per WP:FIVE). Hence we have Washington Street and not List of streets named Washington Street listing all 5,000+ of them with co-ordinates for each." For the lakes and streets and churches and McDonald's and whatever else have locations (latitude and longitude), it can be determined and verified what are their approximate elevations, maybe their approximate sizes, and these statistics can be put into an article or table row. And many generalities can be mined about the average weather in the area, and the typical land usages in the area, and so on, so that a bot can write an article or a table row with some detail that might for a second look interesting or useful, if you were only looking at a few of them. But NO, we don't want separate articles. We also don't want separate table rows about each of these. List-articles have to meet some minimum criteria and have some minimum criteria for membership, beyond "shares name with something else". How many surnames exist, how many female first names exist, how many colors exist? Do you really want to have/allow/require, for every one of these, a list-article enumerating tens or hundreds or thousands of examples of lakes sharing that name? Of boats sharing that name Of persons? Few or none of which are individually notable. Is wp:Notability to be transformed to "shares a name with something else", or "shares a name with something having an article"? Every state has a registry of boats and ships, I think. Every person in the United States at least is named in one or more databases. Are we required to create a list-article for "boats named Petunia", and "persons named Janice" and allow a row in that list for every one of thousands of examples? "Ships named Elizabeth"? About lakes or other things having fixed locations and names discernible on any map, no, we do not want a separate article about each one of them, and we do not want to allow a set-index for every naming combination of them. "Streets named 32nd Street"? "Churches named First Presbyterian"? "Home Depots"? For every celebrity, have a list of persons sharing that name? Have a list of every set of Facebook persons who have the same name?

About this list-article, there are eight items not having articles, about which effectively nothing is known. I know, because i debated about it previously, that the only thing known about the "small lake in Goldsboro, North Carolina" is that it has a location shown in Mapcarta. We don't want a nicely-organized list-article covering it. About none of them is there any mention, AFAIK, in any other article; neither Goldsboro, North Carolina nor any other article, present or future, will ever mention that lake, unless someone is just going out of their way to disprove this point. For set index articles like this one, with items not covered in separate articles, there is not even a disambiguation-between-existing-articles function being served. Nor is there any plausible interest of readers to find their way from one local one to a different one far away, merely sharing the same name. We need to exercise judgment and cut those eight mentions out of Wikipedia, entirely. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (ec). As others have said, this provides a place to gather what information we have about lakes that do not (so far as we know) merit an article, as well as distinguishing them from other lakes of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not want to gather information about them, and no we do not need or want to distinguish them. --Doncram (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put it another way. How many disambiguation pages are there in Wikipedia? Do you want to require or allow, for every one of those, a corresponding "set index article" of things named similarly and having articles, with trivial facts encouraged to be mined about each of them to be put into the list, plus add tens or hundreds or thousands of other items not having articles but sharing the same name into that list? "Persons named George Washington"? There cannot be more than 50,000 lakes named "Black", er, well maybe there are. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, DAB pages are not precluded from mentioning topics which do not have their own articles, so some of this could be incorporated there. But the lakes without articles are simply among the millions of large ponds around the world that hardly even merit listing. Next to the one in Pleasantdale, Saskatchewan, are more than a dozen small lakes but does that really mean a "List of lakes named Lawley" and "List of lakes named McPhail", etc. are guaranteed existence despite the non-notability of their contents and failure of NLIST? These don't merit mention in their local region pages, much less with completely disconnected places sharing a name. Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: You are arguing that Wikipedia:Set index articles like this should all be purged. Doncram also feels strongly that the Wikipedia:Set index articles guideline is mistaken. I encourage you to open a discussion at the guideline's talk page or some other suitable forum. Meanwhile, "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for deleting an article that is a classic example of compliance with the guideline. First get the guideline changed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aymatth2, you seem to believe that the SIA guideline states that every identifiable set of things is notable (every set of Facebook pages of persons having the same name?). It does not. It states "Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." Stand-alone lists do have to meet notability requirements, I am not sure if you know that? I do agree that there probably are some other suspect set index articles, but here we are working on the new problem of dodgy lists of lakes. And we do not have to change any SIA guideline to address that. --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new problem at all.
WP:LISTPURP. I get impatient with this wikilawyering. The point is that a list like this is useful to a reader looking for information about a lake named McArthur that does not have a stand-alone article. Deleting it serves no useful purpose. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Umm, you point to wp:NOTESAL, which is pretty clear that this list-topic is not valid. There is not a single source existing which discusses this as a group or set, right? And I think no one ever could be interested in it as a set. wp:LISTPURP is in the Manual of Style and comments about ways a list might be useful, none of which applies here AFAICT.
wp:ITSUSEFUL points out that being useful is not enough, because lots of info is useful but not encyclopedic, and anyhow you must say why you think something is useful. The only vague possibility that I see is a person from North Carolina, who knows there is a "McArthur" pond there, perhaps because they see it on a map, might want to know: Does Wikipedia have anything substantial to tell me about it? And the answer is NO, which is conveyed perfectly by the disambiguation page showing no entry. If the list-article continues to exist, that just confuses matters, it sort of suggests that Wikipedia will have information about it, although that is not the case. You must have a different idea about usefulness than i do, i hope you might explain. But I too would like to hear from others, and I will reply less here. --Doncram (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

About that list of Diamond lakes, though, which I was once aware of, you had me worried about how many full-blown "List of lakes named X" there might be. In Category:Set indices on lakes, there are in fact six others, created in 2007 (one by Bkonrad by the way), 2008, and 2010, and then there is this one created in 2018. These are not too many to deal with, in future AFDs, while the priority should be to address this new one, and the current idea held by one or a few newish editors that creating more of these might be okay. There are about 90 less pretentiously named shorter lists in the category, which can be dealt with in an orderly manner, too. Compare vs. possibility of thousands of similar list-articles (all of which would be inappropriate IMHO) being created. --Doncram (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the others above. Useful list. Distingushing them from the rest are also useful. Deleting this in the name of coherence is not in the best interest of the Wikipedia. BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid
set index article "about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name", better than many. The dab page is not sufficient because this article contains info not found elsewhere on WP. There's no reason to obliterate well-sourced info. Few people look at this list but it hurts absolutely nothing. Station1 (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This type of list article is the perfect way of dealing with items that are not individually notable. It would certainly be correct of have such an article as
List of lakes in Ohio, which contains some minimal information about lakes that might be notable or nearly notable, but about which we do not yet have articles--or possibly may never have articles. It's much superior to the other alternative, making a separate article for every possible lake, under the rule that all named geographic features are notable--inclusionist as I am about geographic features, this is often wildly excessive coverage adding only confusion. If anyone should eventually expand one of the listings, it would be easily possible; if not ,we have at least some information. Doing it by name also is enormously convenient, because someone may well want to look up such a name, but not know the state. (I often have this problem when trying to locate articles on relatively minor geographical feature in other WPs, especially in countries where many villages or other objects will have very similar names after particular saints. I sometimes cannot figure it out without going to their article on each possible region and hope the object is mentioned.) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of lakes in Quebec
, which could be modified to include coordinates and more. However, the list definition itself here is invalid and unhelpful; IMHO we do not want such a collection defined so randomly, having no coherence, no reason to link the items, and we do not want to built a system of world-wide lists of lakes grouped merely by superficial similarity of names. If you want to park mention of each of these lakes into list-articles, that can be done, but should be done in the existing system of "Lists of lakes in REGION" type articles, and/or perhaps splitting out or creating new lists of lakes by watershed.

This AFD, however, is about one instance of a particularly bad way to define a list, one not supported by any sourcing. And DGG's !vote here, like all other "Keep" votes in the AFD so far, simply does not address the basic issue that there is a requirement for notability which is not met here. And I and some others are objecting, and think this article should be deleted. And deletion is what is required/supported by policies and guidelines. --Doncram (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC) and revised--Doncram (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey I see the !votes so far are 8 to "Keep" and 7 (besides the nominator's view) to "Delete" here, so it is ~~more likely than not~~ conceivable that this could be closed "No consensus" and therefore Kept. That is, if the closer ignores quality of arguments and just counts votes. If you are considering closing this, please take note that your decision will likely be reviewed at
wp:DELREV
and if you do ignore the merits, I expect it will likely be overturned.Sorry, no need to be making threats --Doncram

But anyhow, seeing that the longterm supporters of set index articles ~~are likely~~ conceivably could get their way, and ~~it may be enshrined~~ then one might argue it has been enshrined that "set index articles do not need to comply with notability requirements", I have taken the opportunity to point out the availability of this argument to save almost any article headed for deletion. (This is somewhat of a joke, maybe not funny, maybe not working, but please understand that this was meant jokingly.--doncram) Please see:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurr, about a list in the "Fiction and the arts" section of AFD debates which can easily be labelled as an SIA, and

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ahmed, a biography up for deletion which can easily be converted into a SIA by adding coverage about any of many persons sharing that name.

It is argued in those that the big exception (NO NOTABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR ANY SET OF SAME-NAMED THINGS!) means those articles can be saved, regardless of their merits otherwise. This is a tiny bit of a stunt, but not seriously disruptive (i did not actually !vote in either of those). My point here is obviously that ignoring fundamental policies cannot be allowed. There has been, for quite a while, confusion and a determined local consensus of SIA/DAB editors protecting a seemingly big exception to policies, but actually in only a relatively small area. Wikipedia is much bigger than the narrow area of lakes and mountains and ships and such so far covered by set index articles (most of which are probably legit), and the absence of valid reasoning here about random lakes having nothing in common, and no sourcing, is going to be seen, I hope. IMHO it is high time. --Doncram (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: You are flogging a dead horse. Wikipedia:Set index articles have been around for a long time and serve a useful function. There is no more need for them to be notable than for a disambiguation page to be notable. It is time to drop the stick and slowly back away. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N. No one has demonstrated why "List of lakes named McArthur" is a notable topic. ----Pontificalibus 12:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That is pure wikilawyering. A set index is a list of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name, like List of peaks named Mount Washington. The items will usually have nothing else in common. It is very unlikely that the title of a set index would ever be notable, any more than the title of a disambiguation page, a related concept. If you think set indexes should be abolished, take that up at some more public forum. This obscure AfD is not the place to dispute guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not what is going on here. Actually this is a clear case now, and I think it is about ready to be closed "Delete", given valid arguments for doing so, no disagreement at all from anyone about fact this does not meet the notability requirements that are required to be met by the existing guidelines which govern. Not one "Keep" voter has responded to the issues raised. Perhaps the strongest "Keep" reason suggested is "this is not doing any harm", which is not a valid AFD argument. And, I happen to think this is doing serious harm, specifically by confusing matters for arriving and/or relatively new editors in this area, who should be directed towards productive work, and also by mis-serving readers. --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Once again, this is not the place to discuss the question of whether set index lists should be abolished. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an interesting list. The info on every lake listed can be expanded with a few more sentences.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of lakes named McArthur random break

Keep the SIA, recommend Merge the dab into the SIA

It turns out that the
notability guidelines for stand-alone lists
are subtle, and I had to re-read it multiple times.

The important thing to note is that the
List of mountains of Ethiopia or List of King George V Playing Fields in the United Kingdom
) whose criteria are not supported by external sources, yet are considered valid list articles.

WP:LISTN
says this explicitly:

“ There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. ”

WP:LISTPURP
and says

“ Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. ”

WP:LISTPURP says that lists should fulfill information or navigation purposes. So, the question is --- does List of lakes named McArthur fulfill a navigational purpose and an informational purpose? I would claim that it must fulfill both. If it were only a navigational purpose, then the dab page McArthur Lake
should be sufficient and I would support deletion, per nom.

WP:SALAT
supports this kind of analysis, too:

“ Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in
What Wikipedia is not
, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. ”

From reading nom's and Delete comments, I would infer that the commenters may fall into this category of Wikipedians, and may think that List of lakes named McArthur is trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. From reading the Keep comments, I would infer that those Wikipedians may think that the list article, as currently written, contributes to the state of human knowledge. This is a legitimate disagreement.

From my point of view, this list has informational value, because each element is a named natural feature with information beyond simple statistics (in the Notes column). This makes many of the entries notable per
WP:CSC
, it's acceptable to have a list article where each entry may not have enough information to support a stand-alone article.

Thus, I would say that this list article fulfills both a navigation purpose and an informational purpose, so should be kept per
WP:CSC. The same analysis probably would not work for Blurr
, for example. Nor would this argument work for a list with thousands of lakes named "Black", with only statistics or coordinates for each entry.

To reiterate nom's point, the navigational aspect of List of lakes named McArthur and the dab page McArthur Lake strongly overlap. It doesn't make sense to me to have both. Given the informational value in List of lakes named McArthur, I would suggest a merge.

Finally, I believe that this disagreement is because there isn't clear guidance of when we should create SIAs versus when we should use plain dabs. This lack of clarity will trigger case-by-case analysis of the notability of list articles. And, as we've seen,
WP:LISTPURP
that requires discussion that seems to make harmonious editing difficult.

AfD is a poor place to discuss changes to policy. Per
WT:SIA could be helpful. —hike395 (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WT:SIA
once this discussion is closed. I would say that most SIAs are not notable in themselves. They are collections of things that happen to share the same name, and are very unlikely to have been the subject of news items, scholarly papers etc. But they often have value to readers, so have a place in Wikipedia. It would be worthwhile to try to clarify when a SIA clearly is relevant, and when it clearly is not, although there will always be borderline cases.

I am a bit uncomfortable with merging the DAB and the SIA. The DAB includes a couple of things that are not lakes, so including them would technically violate the SIA guideline. I do not feel strongly about this. It can be discussed in a merge proposal after this AfD has been closed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. I am skeptical that users searching for McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor or McArthur Lake Wildlife Management Area would start at McArthur Lake. But we could just put them into a hatnote on the SIA. But we can discuss further at a potential merge. —hike395 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to Hike395. Hi again. Hike395 and Bkonrad and some other editors long involved with "set index articles" all chatted back in 2015, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peaks named Signal Mountain, where I took aim at the poster child "set index article". Which is different than this case, in part because it was argued that a "signal mountain" is a real thing, and that there really may be readers interested in knowing about the set of them. So I "lost" the AFD, and nothing else discussed about SIAs got changed either.

Here, "Lakes named McArthur" is a truly trivial set, about which no one has interest.

Both Aymatth2 and Hike395 are confused about list-articles which are cross-categorization lists, i.e. the intersection between two list-systems. But here, we have "LAKES" which is a valid set and "LIST OF LAKES", divided by region, is a valid list-system, following the by-region categorization tree under Category:Lakes by country. And we have "THINGS NAMED MCARTHUR", which is not a valid thing. And there is no Category:Things named McArthur, because that would be a TRIVIAL CHARACTERISTIC, and we do not allow categories by trivial, non-defining characteristics. In practice we do not allow re-splitting a legitimate big list-system by some new trivial characteristic.

You can't seize upon the assertion that "wikipedia doesn't know what to do about cross-categorizations" to get this AFD dismissed, because this is not such a case. And even if you can find some way to argue it is, that does not mean we need to suspend all intelligence and cave in. For any true cross-categorization list, one can still discuss whether there are sources about the group, whether it is plausible that any substantive readership might exist, etc.

Also, both Aymatt2 and Hike395 argue that some bigger decision should be made elsewhere, not here. That is simply not the case. Here we have the one new "List of lakes named X" articles which has been created in years, and it must follow the current requirements, including that it must be a notable topic. It's true that there exist 5 or 6 similarly named lists, created in 2010 or before, perhaps when new articles simply got less scrutiny, or when guidelines were not clear, or when our pretty good AFD system of discussions was not as mature as it is now. And actually those lists might be different than here. (This list-article is objectively "pretentious", meaning that its naming and content suggest that Wikipedia thinks gathering and presenting assorted info about its members is legitimate, and that expansive development about any new thing of the name, no matter how obscure, is welcome. While for the others, created by bot from
GNIS
perhaps, seem less inviting for editors to add information to. They might arguably be legitimate as modified disambiguation pages, although including other items that are included in GNIS and including coordinates for all. They do not invite random text and sources and new members to be added. Perhaps some new exception for disambiguation pages might be created to keep them, but that debate is not for here.)

Hike395 suggests a different distraction to fend off this AFD, i.e. to discuss, elsewhere, a merger between the list-article and the dab page. Well, the dab page is legitimate. By existing policy and guidelines, a few redlinks could be added, as long as they comply with
MOS:DABRL
, i.e. as long as the item is purported to be worthy of an article, somewhere else, by another article including that redlink. If any of the 8 non-article items is deserving of an article in the future, then you could consider adding a redlink there, and consider that to be a "merger" of information from here. Also you could argue that moving the items here into various legitimate list-articles of format "List of lakes in REGION" is kind of like merging that information elsewhere, to multiple targets. Frankly I am skeptical about any value, because like pointed out already, it is unlikely that any other Wikipedia article, ever, will legitimately mention that North Carolina one. But sure, it can be stipulated that the paltry contents will be provided to the userspace of any editor interested, in case they think they can use the info in some other way. But the decision here is whether to KEEP or to DELETE this collection, and there is no serious merger proposal on the table, and making a new one just to derail this AFD should not be allowed.

This AFD is now, and it is fair and good to question this list-article here. And it is NOT COMPLICATED. There is no need to change policy or guidelines anywhere, in order to decide this case according to the policy and guidelines which apply.

And yes, Hike395 has it right that some consider this topic to be "trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." And damaging, too, including from the cost of having repeated debates like this one. --Doncram (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hike395 and other keep voters. Doncram, you really, really, REALLY need to stop your bludgeoning. It is unseemly and counterproductive to your cause. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this was bludgeoning. I do happen to agree that in general I don't like AFD nominators commenting too much, though. Anyhow I responded above with length to Hike395, an editor whose opinions I respect, and responded to others I respect also, because I really don't get how they can ignore the guidelines which apply. But I was done, certainly if they are not replying, and I have continued discussion with Hike395 elsewhere about potentially changing some guidelines in some way (not relevant for this AFD). --Doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree this is more useful than a disambiguation page. A valid list article, aids in navigation, helps people find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 00:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that individuals may have a need to look for a particular lake with this name and such a list could be of use in helping them find the lake for which they are looking. I have run into situations where I had to sort through lakes listed on the internet with identical names in an attempt to find a particular one. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:59, 8 September 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. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet notability requirements. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MUSYCA Children's Choir

MUSYCA Children's Choir (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 ensemble, article consists of mostly just a list of albums and tours. I would move back to Draft space but seeing as its been moved before I cant. CodeLyoko^buzz 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CodeLyoko^buzz 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets
WP:BAND.--Pontificalibus 08:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I agree with the above user about voyagela.com and laparent.com: They are good sources. The author, Mimi Slawoff, is a well-published writer: https://www.bing.com/search?q=mimi+slawoff&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falwell R. Manzano

Falwell R. Manzano (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 individual. Listed awards seem to be from his employer, and not evidence of broader notability. MarginalCost (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedied. Unambiguous promotion. Gilded Snail (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have CSD'd per
G11, entirely promotional with no sources to back up the claims. Kb03 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per
A7. Entirely promotional, completely unsourced except for the subject's own website, and no credible claims to importance (that list of awards doesn't come close). Hug^syrup 10:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Being good at high presure sales does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll give credit to Doncram for some original thinking. I can't see how this idea meets any of our current policies or guidelines. All other arguments point to delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kane-DuPage Regional Museum Association

Kane-DuPage Regional Museum Association (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 organization, while it might be doing great work, does not meet the notability requirement for organizations. Mpen320 (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. It's probably or perhaps a good idea for museums in an area to cooperate; i know of areas where the museums do not, they are clear instead that they are competing for tourists' attention and they do NOT want to share their ticket revenues with others. It would help if this could be expanded to report, marketing-wise or other-wise, on how the cooperation is working or not. This should include a list of all 60 or so participating museums, hopefully in a table. Some may already have Wikipedia articles. For the others, they can be covered as a row in this list-article. The name of such a museum can be a link to its location in the list-article, using an {{anchor}} if the location is in free text and using an "id=" field if the location is a row in a table. This will help Wikipedia avoid having numerous separate articles about minor museums. If you are a "deletionist" and wake up every morning hoping to delete and destroy stuff in Wikipedia, then you should !vote "Keep" here, to assist in preventing new articles or to assist in redirecting (effectively deleting, if you want to tally it that way in your scoring) existing articles. --Doncram (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I just don't see
WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Links and mentions by member museums and local governments don't show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or userfy. I'm not seeing any useful sources to support
WP:NORG. I do sympathize with Doncram's feelings that this is a worthy organization, and that there's the potential for an interesting encyclopedia article along the lines he outlines. If he wants to work on that, I fully support moving this to his user space to support that effort. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinryū Arimoto

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kinryū Arimoto

Articles for deletion/Kinryū Arimoto (2nd nomination)

Kinryū Arimoto (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 was deleted via AFD before. Subject is not known for anything particularly notable other than Whitebeard from One Piece. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Whitebeard, a supporting character, he is also better known for major character roles in talk) 02:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep - Clearly meets
WP:GNG after a cursory glance. The article does need some more work but it's not unnotable and deserves to stand. Michepman (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The fact that a stub article was deleted previously, has nothing to do with the current article. This person easily passes
WP:ENTERTAINER based on their notable voice acting roles. Dream Focus 12:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets GNG and
^📞 08:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep one of main role on Wan Wan Celeb Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin anx other films. I think article clearly meets GNG.صدیق صبري (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Compass

Captain Compass (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)

PRODed. Can't find a merge or redirect target for nn character.
talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep as the nomination does not provide a valid
reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ - Nominator says character in non-notable, rationale given. Googling reveals more info about actual compasses than the character. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the nominator used Twinkle to replace a
WP:BEFORE is not being done. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

You mean like how you deprod any article that is prodded without even bothering to check the rationale, or in many cases, even give a proper edit summary? Seems like the same difference to me.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I enlarged and improved the article, and added refs. Article's in much better place now imho. Obscure but notable character. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happy to amend my vote in light of the discovered reliable sources! Your Google-fu is stronger than mine.--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case it seems to have been brought up to par with references per
WP:SAVE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:14, 3 September 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) 01:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Transformers: Prime

Locations in Transformers: Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While a PROD is nice, I'd like this completely unsourced fancruft to go the way of
talk) 00:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The fact that it's not even locations in Transformers, but a sub-series of it, is a testament to its failure of notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this belongs on a Wikia, not here. Reyk _YO! 12:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a small list based on a subset of a franchise, most of which are too minor to be mentioned by name in the plot summary at Transformers: Prime. They can be adequately explained inline on other articles when necessary - there is no need for a centralized list. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K. Clearly this isn't getting deleted. Between Keep and Merge, it's about equal in numbers, but the Keep arguments strike me as mostly pretty weak, so going with merge. If somebody wants to spin this back out as a stand-alone article, discuss it on the talk page and see if you can build consensus to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurse

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

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

PROD rationale: "Non-notable fictional character". Better idea to merge/redirect.
talk) 00:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K, rather than deletion (and I can't tell that the nominator is actually arguing to delete?), was an important character in an MCU film so there may be more sources out there for him than we already have. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, several new sources have been added to the publication history and other media sections. BOZ (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boz's rationale, but believe keep is preferable. Don't disagree that the article could use some love, but
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ford MF (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Subject is notable, has appeared in Thor: The Dark World as an important, credited character, and FordMF stated my final point perfectly with his last sentence. Utopes (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: K, not notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K. None of the non-primary sources being used or that have been found since the AFD began are significant enough coverage to show independent, real-world notability. Pretty much the most extensive one that isn't just plot summary is the Variety article, and that is just a casting announcement. Appearing in a movie is not a valid reason for passing the GNG without significant coverage, which this character lacks. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge basic info to Elves (Marvel Comics). Better a relevant redirect than allow the article to be kept by a backdoor page like the lists of characters. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K. Then redirect the title to Curse, since this plausible misspelling of a common word is obviously more important than an obscure fictional character. Reyk _YO! 14:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to notability of the character. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 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 redirect to
talk) 19:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Drift (Transformers)

Drift (Transformers) (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 wanted to redirect this, but I can't decide if it's to
talk) 00:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No administrator, nor the administrator deletion tool, is involved in that. Stop bringing things to Articles for deletion where deletion of an edit history is not what you want. AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 09:44, 2 September 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 close. Now at
talk) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Captain Carrot

Captain Carrot (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 PROD was contested, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 2 September 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 close. Now at
talk) 23:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fastback (comics)

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

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

This was sent to PROD, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 2 September 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 close. Now at
talk) 23:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Alley-Kat-Abra

Alley-Kat-Abra (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 was sent to PROD, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 2 September 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 close. Now at
talk) 23:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Rubberduck

Rubberduck (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 was sent to PROD, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 2 September 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 close. Now at
talk) 23:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yankee Poodle

Yankee Poodle (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 was sent to PROD, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew!. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cheese

Little Cheese (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)

Captain Carrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Alley-Kat-Abra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Fastback (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

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

Yankee Poodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

This was sent to PROD, but I'm sending this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect.
talk) 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not give a
WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do some work before bringing the matter here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The reason is explained in the page history in the edit that came right before that added the PROD. It's true that some truly nonsensical AfDs should be closed, but this is just
WP:GAMING when the explanation is obvious and you choose to ignore it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all Nominator needs to group all these together since they are all in the same series. However, they need to all be merged to Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew! as they have short explanations in that article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 19:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
FoxyGrampa75: Captain Carrot, Alley-Kat-Abra, Fastback, Rubberduck, Yankee Poodle. They are all from the same series, so they should be grouped._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 23:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all While outside sources are likely to exist, this references only the comic appearances themselves. Nevertheless, the content would certainly fit in a merged page. Reywas92^Talk 23:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew!. I honestly thought there might be a chance that the Captain himself may have reliable sources that discuss him beyond simple plot summary or upcoming book announcements, but he really doesn't - all of the in-depth reliable sources I can find are generally about the title and team as a whole, rather than any of the individual characters. As such, the individual characters should be merged to the main team article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all- as stand-alone articles these are excessive fancruft but a merged page is plausible if it cuts down on the unsourced plot summary. Procedural nominations are not eligible for speedy keep. Reyk _YO! 07:01, 6 September 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. Consensus is to keep the material as the subject is notable, but no prejudice against further discussion of a possible merge. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft mouth

Soft mouth (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)

Relies on a single source and looking online there doesn't seem to have extensive coverage of the behavior.
In addition, the entire article is unsourced except a single line and can be consider
ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 00:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Look ye among the books, and ye shall find: [26],[27], for starters. It pops up in any number of hunting dog guides. Admittedly it helps to know that it is a thing before searching, but copious sources exist (and should be added to the article). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 19:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew Davidson, how is that a keep reason?!?

I'm not trying to bite newbies! --
ping me) 12:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think he's being punny :p Still, actual relevant Keep reasons from Andrew D. are a common desideratum and more common absence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae's !vote. Wiki-notability is about whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be included in the article as it presently stands. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae and XOR. Notable behavior, even if it isn't properly here per se. Utopes (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The behavior has decent discussion in sources, so it's fair for notability, though I wouldn't have a preference if this was merged back into
talk) 18:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 19:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I missed that it had been split out. I'll take a look at the sources a bit more and the current structure of the article, but I could be convinced to just merge it back instead.
talk) 20:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

My preference would be for keeping it as a separate article. It's technically a form of bite inhibition, but quite removed from the curbing-of-aggression phenomenon that's discussed there - it's a working dog skill, and more specifically a hunting term of art. I would also replace the parenthetical link in the first sentence of Bite inhibition with a "For..." hatnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the more I look at it, the more I really have no preference between keep and merge. Functionally, I'd prefer in most cases that a true split is done within the context of the parent article first to see if the full content really justifies it. The topic is nearly redudant with the parent article, but it's slightly different in some aspects. Not enough for me to go full keep anymore as a merge wouldn't really hurt anything here, but it's also a bare minimum where you can say notability is met, but whether it's redundant with an existing article is up in the air.
talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_2&oldid=1142224952"