Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 September	25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Theta Phi

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

Article about a fraternity with no claim to significance nor achieving any level of notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did this fraternity even exist? I cannot find one source. Obvious
WP:GNG violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the discussion here, it seems like none of the sources on offer satisfy the

WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Swingtips

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

Contrary to claim, band wasn't part of swing revival. Can't find them in any of my sources (books) or online. Not notable, not enough sources exist for an article of substance. Orphaned article for almost ten years. Vmavanti (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should remain as it is but with a few added corroborated links and citations as it is all factually correct and can be verified. You didn't do your research, and yes these links may not be in the article already, however, they verify information in the article marked as "citation needed." It is a blind, bold statement to claim that The Swingtips weren't part of the swing revival, as there are many sources here (some biased) as well as music compilations that show the importance of The Swingtips. Can we please keep this civil and not jump to conclusions? This has already jumped to a bad start and I thank you for bringing up the uttermost importance of more citations so that interested individuals may find more information if they feel it necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simitar_Entertainment

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing/release/2222015

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing-Volume-2/release/5489381

https://books.google.com/books?id=6TZCAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEILzAB

https://books.google.com/books?id=Sbo_4eR-1xEC&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEIMzAC#v=snippet&q=%22Swingtips%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_qc4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7o7z96-rkAhXFN30KHVffBx84ChDoATAAegQIARAD

https://books.google.com/books?id=GkhGAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik7aql7OrkAhU0On0KHUV2DqA4ChDoATADegQIARAS

https://www.discogs.com/ko/Various-A-Jazzed-Up-Holiday-Volume-2/release/6626971

http://www.davidthomasroberts.com/music/cd-compilations/diamond-cuts-turning-two

https://www.amazon.com/Swingin-Christmas-Various-Artists/dp/B00000DCU9

https://books.google.com/books?id=EQoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=swinging+christmas+royalty+records&source=bl&ots=JZHIvX9xUy&sig=ACfU3U3SqLphczvwIE9haIT2yrwy0UPKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1vsyu-OrkAhVsFzQIHWVoAAIQ6AEwFXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swinging%20christmas%20royalty%20records&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakiemon (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
Help out at CCI! 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Their Christmas album was reviewed in the article Seasonal CDs: The good, the bad, the ... eccentric.(VARIETY)(Review); Bream, Jon ; Surowicz, Tom; Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Dec 8, 1998, p.01E. Other than that, I mainly just found promotional material.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, just some brief mentions here and there which is not enough to fulfill the
WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. It's approaching the threshold, but ultimately there just isn't enough independent coverage to pass
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The fact that HHelvis's comment and the IP's comment were posted a few minutes apart is additional evidence of socking. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paybis

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

Despite the refbombing, it doesn't appear to meet GNG - the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable sources (largely blogs, with the occasional press release), and several don't even mention Paybis (they're more justifying things like "are people buying Bitcoin," which isn't relevant to the article) or are entirely unrelated to the article. I don't see any sources which look reliable. The claim to notability ("considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchanges in the Baltics") is entirely unsupported by the references. Article looks to me like undisclosed promotion/COI.

talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Agree that is fails the GNG, not enough indepth coverage in soruces that arent crypto-Parrots. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page has a few issues, but opining on notability alone, this should definitely be deleted. Nothing I can find in a search adds up to
WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The company has no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. Sonstephen0 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep As a cryptocurrency enthusiast, I went through the resources and found mentions of Bitcoinist, CCN and Cointelegraph. These are the most popular and trusted sources in the industry that Paybis operates in.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/paybis-e-currency-and-bitcoin-exchange-planning-expansion https://www.ccn.com/paybis-leaps-towards-worldwide-crypto-adoption-by-translating-its-website-into-5-new-languages/ https://bitcoinist.com/paybis-buying-bitcoin-credit-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.173.185 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Page is thorough when it comes to its resources. As a cryptocurrency exchange, it makes sense that most of its resources come from authorative blockchain websites. On top of that, the second sentence of the first paragraph ("The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading and is considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchange in the Baltics.[1][2][3][4][5]”) should be updated to better match the references. This would be a more fitting sentence - “The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading.[1][2][3][4][5]”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HHelvis (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to point out that HHelvis very likely has an undisclosed COI with Paybis based on
talk) 01:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I wanted to add that 213.149.173.185 might also be HHelvis. 213.149.173.185 only has five edits. His writing style is very similar. Sonstephen0 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources are either press releases or are primary sources. None of these can be considered independent. Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ridley

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

Cannot find any significant coverage by secondary reliable sources for

WP:NACADEMIC point 3 (particularly since they began taking student fellows). — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mostly as being a Fellow of the RAS. My understanding is that this did count for rather more at one time, before the somewhat mercenary appearance it has now. I've heard his name mostly in relation to celadon glazes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but its reliability as being "highly selective" is no longer there so it cannot be used alone for notability now. However, if someone received it when it did mean more in the past, there are probably other indicators of notability (such as the
  WP:NAUTHOR discussion in the other comments). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak keep I think he meets
WP:NACADEMIC#3, though it would be good to have other evidence that he is/was a fellow of those societies. I found a few other sources which I haven't added, one saying that he was curator of Weymouth and Portland Museums in 1982 [1]; one a scan of an excavation report on The Iron Age Settlement, East Cliff, Bournemouth [2]; he was co-author of Bournemouth Then and Now [3]; and an article in the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter #28 (possibly 1991?) about two strange exhibitions in Bournemouth put on by a Dr Michael Ridley ... [4]. I haven't found any information on where Ridley studied, however, which would be useful information for the bio of a scholar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep per
WP:AUTHOR. Four published reviews for two different books (as listed now in the article) meets my minimum threshold for this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above comments on meeting
WP:NAUTHOR. Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 30 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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Hakim Shamsudin

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

After initially putting it up to

WP:FPL match despite being in a team which is eligible for this. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG satisfied: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] + more. Loads of coverage across various outlets. Not terribly dissimilar to
talk) 00:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw - Ok I might of pressed the Afd button too quickly as I didn't do a
WP:BEFORE before putting this up for Afd. HawkAussie (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm fine with the withdraw, but I'm actually in favour of draftifying per
WP:BLP1E (him signing a professional contract) or mere transfer blurbs. We can move him to mainspace when he makes an appearance. SportingFlyer T·C 07:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. I was going to close this as withdrawn but @SportingFlyer: prefers to draftify so I won't until (if/when) they change their mind. Giant Snowman 08:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is he fails the
WP:10YT. If he never plays a game, I don't think he would be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@SportingFlyer: you can get notable young players who never make it, the classic example is Sonny Pike. Giant Snowman 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLP1E at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That's all your personal opinion, though. "just a youth international who signed for a European team" (which is what Sonny Pike literally did do, btw...) to you, perhaps, but it's (evidently) a big event to Malaysians and arguably Belgian people of interest. "All of the coverage is recent", well he is 17? What do you want, pieces on what happened on his first day at school? Joking aside, I believe your opinions are just that. Also, I wasn't even directly comparing this AfD to the Kelleher one, though you could (I wouldn't) even argue the UCL stuff was (at time of AfD) BLP1E; also, saying "has gone onto..." isn't fair or relevant, as we can't predict the future at AfDs.

talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The recent coverage directly contradicts

WP:GNG, and especially not youth players - I still don't see any reason why we would be making an exception for him. SportingFlyer T·C 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidently, as seen at AfD plenty of times, NFOOTY is, not that I agree, practically worthless - it's all about GNG, which is always arguable; that's why I'd say SNGs are a better way to go, because at least it's a consistent notability line which leaves no, or little to no, questions. The fact (I missed that, good spot!) he doesn't join until 2020, in my opinion, emphasises how notable this player is - this much coverage for something that is a while away from happening, clearly high interest. Even away from the Kortrijk stuff, Luqman is/was still getting attention: [15], [16], [17], [18].

talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:YOUNGATH - they're all game/routine coverage of a youth player. SportingFlyer T·C 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see we aren't going to agree here, which isn't a problem - this is what AfDs are for I guess. Happy editing!

talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep passes
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty

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

Does not appear to pass

WP:ORish. Already had to be revel-ed once, due to copyvio issues. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent institution Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's not still a copyvio, it sure reads like one. I'd be uncomfortable with merging content written in that style and supported by sourcing of such low quality. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my feelings exactly. The only references cited that actually mention the institute are primary non-independent sources. The page itself reads like a PR piece. I am not seeing anything in the page that is merge-worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Making my !vote official. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a fair amount of agreement here that the title should be repurposed as some other type of navigation aid, but the page as is should be kept, if for no other reason than to maintain the attribution history. Any ideas for reworking the page can be worked out on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-related films

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

List that has outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore. Just to be clear in case anybody misunderstands, I am not proposing that we do away with all lists of LGBT-related films; we already have many other more specific lists by year which should absolutely be kept, and I just don't think we need to keep a massive A-Z master list alongside them anymore.
When this was first created in 2003, there were a lot fewer LGBT-related films to list at all -- the original version literally had only around 100 films in it total. But with the sheer explosion in the visibility and sourceability and mainstreaming of LGBT-themed films in the intervening 16 years, we now have over 3,000 articles about LGBT-related films before you even take into account the considerable number of LGBT-themed films that are currently still redlinks, and the literally unfathomable number of LGBT-themed films still to come in the future. So in 2012, we started a comprehensive set of LGBT-related films subgrouped by year of release, which is highly developed and very well-maintained -- and with those lists in place, the value in trying to maintain a comprehensive A-Z master list alongside them is significantly reduced.
The sheer number of LGBT-related films that need to be listed now also poses a serious maintainability problem -- films frequently get added to the by-year lists without being added here, and the sheer number of films involved makes it virtually impossible to actually undertake any serious effort to get all the missing films added here anymore. And, by comparison, if a country has "List of [Country] films of [Year]" lists in place, then we just use "List of [Country] films" as an index of links to the year lists and not as a redundant master list of all the films that are already in the sublists -- and the sheer scope of this topic means we should treat it like a "country" in that sense.
TLDR, I believe this "comprehensive" master list has outlived its usefulness. We should just delete it, move List of LGBT-related films by year overtop the redlink, and let the by-year lists stand on their own from now on instead of trying to compile a reduplicated master list alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move other article over it per Bearcat. This article has outlived its usefulness.
talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete because it has not been proven that the more specific lists have never used this main list as a basis. The attribution history should be preserved. Instead, move this list to
WP:COPYWITHIN. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frankly I fail to see how deleting this is helpful. You can make this a list of lists as mentioned by Erik, same as what you see in Lists of films, subdividing it into different categories as mentioned, List of LGBT-related films by year, List of LGBT-related films by storyline and List of LGBT-related films directed by women, etc. Seems like it should simply be a move proposal instead of a AfD. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing this title as the move destination of one of the other lists is exactly what I proposed. The discussion is fundamentally about whether there's any value in maintaining a massive A-Z master list alongside the other lists anymore, so AFD is the appropriate venue for that discussion — but deletion of this list would not preclude reusing the title for a different purpose, because deletion never precludes redirection or repurposing of its title to cover something else. So the ability to repurpose the title into something else is not a reason why we would need to retain the content of this list in its existing form, which is what a keep result would mandate. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is to move List of LGBT-related films by year to this space, however, List of LGBT-related films by year (which has multiple lists) is not the same as List of LGBT-related films (single list), it is in fact more Lists of LGBT-related films. This is something that should simply be a move that can be proposed in its talk page, discuss, move then adjust the content. Much simpler and less likely to result in unnecessary mistakes. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the goal is to preserve the attribution history. I agree that we don't need a list, but I do not agree that we need to explicitly delete the list as it never existed. The history of this goes back to 2003. The list now persists in more specific forms, and it has not been proven that these forms have never relied on the original list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of whether the by-year lists ever relied on this list or not is completely impossible to prove or disprove in either direction — how, exactly, is anybody supposed to prove anything either way about whether the year lists were compiled by pulling films directly from this list, or from the same outside sources that were used to build this list? And secondly, as of the time that the year lists started getting spun out, the list was half as long or less as it is now — so by far the largest group of involved films were (a) added to both the year set and this list concurrently, (b) added to the year set first and then added here later, or (c) added to the year lists and never actually added here at all, and thus never relied on the existence of this list as their source. And even for the far smaller number of films that were already in this list before the by-year lists got spun out, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on external sources, or on this master list per se, is not my responsibility to prove. And precisely because external sources do exist for the classification, and we're supposed to be relying on those outside sources rather than self-citing ourselves in violation of

WP:CIRCULAR, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on this list or on the external sources isn't even an important consideration at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Like I said, I agree with converting this into a "lists" article. I don't understand why you want to delete the entire page history. Look at

list of science fiction films. It redirects to lists of science fiction films, and we can see the oldest edits going back to 2001. That's what I favor. Not the outright deletion of the original topic editing, which was completely valid and likely spun off into the specific lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is an example of the need to preserve copyright. Editor Dev920 began "splitting list" on July 31, 2007 with List of LGBT-related films and List of LGBT-related films by year. Later, in August 2012, editor Lugnuts split that (and contributions in between) out into individual years here. The page history of the original list should be preserved. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that if you bold the word "delete", it would look like you are choosing to delete the article, which is in fact what's recorded in your AfD stats. Bold either keep or delete. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I changed it from bold to underline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider repurposing into a navigation page. ミラ P 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments re preserving attribution history above (as I happen to just so log into my account for the first time in a couple of years just as this kicks off...) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy timing! I almost didn't tag you. To be clear, are you in favor of converting this list into a list-of-lists article? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider repurposing into a navigation page.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo

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

The topic of this article is incoherent: by whom is the mistake supposed to be made? It is almost completely unreferenced; fails notability, because there is no evidence of a literature on the topic of this ragbag of mistakes. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup by proposer: This article is >10 years old, and has collected seven entries in the list:

arigatou: This in itself is perhaps notable, because yes, it is a famous bogus etymology. I can't believe that any native Japanese speaker would imagine this to be a loan word -- it is not written in katakana.
baba: This is probably a general phenomenon that there are very similar words across almost all languages.
chakku: This might indeed be thought by native speakers to be a loan word, but isn't.
chari: Nobody seems to know where this came from.
emoji: This is a recent import into English. No native speaker would imagine it was a loan into Japanese (of course moji came from Chinese originally).
garou: A very strained story... unreferenced.
neta: Yes, many Japanese speakers might not know its origin; it's written in katakana.

@T.c.w7468: The latest entry (emoji) is obviously good faith. But it really has no coherent connection to the other entries. I contemplated deleting it, but it is so unclear what the topic is supposed to be that it seems unfair to privilege the other entries above it. I can't see quite what the reference says, but it appears just to mention that this is unrelated to "emoticon". True, but not notable.

I would guess that anything up to 10% of the entire vocabulary of Japanese (or any other language!) would have faintly plausible mistaken guesses as to its meaning. I suggest that trying to collect a comprehensive list is therefore not encyclopedic. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) I suppose what you are saying makes sense. I added the entry for emoji because I thought that the article was for a list for words mistaken for gairaigo in general, as opposed to ones being commonly mistaken specifically by Japanese people. The reference was taken from other Wikipedia articles referencing the fact that the two aren't related, and was meant to demonstrate that the statement was true, which at the time of editing I thought was sufficient for this article. Perhaps it was bad practice on my part. I do not feel confident enough in my understanding of Wikipedia's policy to form an opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted, though I think you do have a good case. I'm just writing this in case my (flawed) thought process behind the edit becomes useful for further discussion. T.c.w7468 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I'm not aware of any treatment of this topic outside Wikipedia, and I couldn't find any literature on the topic in EBSCO or Google Scholar. Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Cnilep. Without proper sourcing, it would appear that the bulk of this list is the result of
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can't think of a way this article could be substantiated with reliable sources, with rigid criteria for inclusion. Nardog (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator says, who is the mistake made? Vorbee (talk) 06:22, 26 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. bd2412 T 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Richards

)

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

Fails

WP:NACADEMIC. This is a stub of an article, with very little information and only a list of papers. This doesn't show that they've had a significant impact on their discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Nor have they received a highly prestigious award. In fact, they appear to fail all criteria of NACADEMIC, which is why we are here. While the page has many sources, they are mainly just sources to the papers the professor has written, not independent sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The strongest argument for notability seems to me to be that he cofounded the
assume that if that was so, the subject had a change of heart about the article, and come down on the side of honoring the request. Since Daver68 has been notified of this discussion, I'll also drop notifications on the other two account talk pages in addition to my pings here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I should note that per this AN thread, it appears that User:Mrdavid1729 is the article's subject (and simply lost their old account) and would very much like it deleted. Said thread is also the reason I opened this AfD in the first place. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a David L. Richards whose book Poland Spring: A Tale of the Gilded Age, 1860-1900 has multiple reviews on JSTOR, but I strongly suspect he is a different person than the one described here. For instance this site describes the Poland Spring author as a 1997 graduate alum of the University of New Hampshire, at a time overlapping the subject's time as a doctoral student at Binghampton. The same search did not turn up any reviews of Violence Against Women and the Law, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is probably a case here for passing
WP:PROF#C1, based on GScholar citation results. However, there do not seem to be any other significant indicators of notability, and, since the subject has requested deletion in the AN thread linked above, I think we should respect his wishes here. Perhaps a redirect to CIRI Human Rights Data Project can be created afterwards. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the borderline nature of the case for notability evident here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at subject's? request. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete'. Marginal per WP:PROF/GNG plus subject preference for no article is a clear delete from me. Guy (help!) 23:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough source to establish notability. Barca (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not clearly pass any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of
WP:NACADEMIC. His work was critiqued and the main subject of the peer reviewed article "Response to David L. Richards", by Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Sikkink, Human Rights Quarterly, May, 2016, Vol.38(2), p.493-496. There he was acknowledged for playing a critical role in maintaining the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, although it was critical of some of his interpretations of that data set in published peer reviewed journals. His work was also the central focus of the journal article Seeing Double: Human Rights Impact through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes, Hafner-Burton, Emilie ; Ron, James, World Politics, 2009, Vol.61(2), pp.360-401. He has over 60 published peer reviewed journal articles in my university library, and there are many many more that cite his research. There are also three books to which he is a contributing author in my university library.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I would appreciate re-evaluation from User:Yngvadottir, User:David Eppstein, User:Johnpacklambert, user:JzG. User:BarcrMac, User:Nsk92, and User:CaptainEek.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rimer

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

Inadequately referenced

self-published Patreon, none of which are notability-supporting sources at all -- and the only one that is an acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source, The Georgia Straight, is not enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source you can show. GNG requires a lot more than just one piece of real-media journalism amid a bunch of blogs and podcasts. Note that despite the earlier discussion, this is not eligible for immediate speedy as it's written and sourced differently than the original version -- but the sourcing being shown here is still not actually changing the notability equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: Three additional sources have been added; however, two (Vancouver Courier and Daily Hive) are still community hyperlocals, which are okay for verification of facts but not contributors of notability points; and the Red Deer Advocate, which is a start down the correct path as a real daily newspaper but still not enough. And all are still stacked on top of each other in violation of the

citation overkill principle that we do not need three or four separate citations to be piled on top of each other as reduplicated support for the same fact. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Neither "keep" mentions any reliable sources. No sources, no article. Sandstein 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Article is sourced only by primary sources. It also seems more like a

talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, but move to Creature type (there is no need for disambiguation), and expand to cover the concept of creature types as employed in other gaming systems. bd2412 T 17:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bd2412, do you have any sources to show that this is a notable topic? When I do a web search, I mostly get RPG source books, which are neither reliable nor independent. Rockphed (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint sources than I would have expected. Nevertheless, typology of monsters is a ubiquitous characteristic of role-playing games. Perhaps the solution is to find a more appropriate term to head this under. bd2412 T 19:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article is nothing but a primary-sourced game guide. As mentioned by both the nomination and BD2412, sources on this topic showing notability are not readily available. A properly sourced article, potentially under a more accurate title, on a similar concept in general, as proposed by bd2412 has merit, but doing so does not require the retention of this primary sourced game guide. Rorshacma (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma and nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure
WP:GAMEGUIDE content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlen Kruzhkov

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

This article is written like a résumé and doesn't indicate why this individual is notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page was created by a SPA, most likely Marlen Kruzhkov himself. The article is nothing more than self promotion. Sonstephen0 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established.-
WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
WP:MILL. A guy with a job doing his job. All the sources that are independent of the subject are not actually about the subject; all the sources that are actually about the subject are not independent of the subject. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 28 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. Clear consensus to get rid of the article in some way (excluding a "keep or merge" argument that gave no reason for its suggestion). There are two redirect targets, one of which has more support but also more opposition; I'll punt the redirect-or-no question to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous spider

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

Generic non-notable monster class that fails

WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel like there might be an article we could write about giant spiders in fiction. I'm not sure there is any sourcing to back such an article up and I don't want to look for it because pictures of spiders make me very uncomfortable (yes, I am a wuss). Even writing this comment is making my skin crawl. Rockphed (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already such an article, called Cultural depictions of spiders. A Good Article in fact._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Cultural depictions of spiders, possibly to a section thereof. Rockphed (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails
WP:GNG based on the sources in the article (all appear primary.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non notable, and no sufficiently secondary sources to indicate any sort of notability. I'm not sure how useful this name would even be as a redirect, as its rather generic. Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gas spore

)

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

Non-notable fictional monster that fails

WP:GNG. The name is also pretty vague and can refer to various IRL things. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable fictional creature. There are no non-primary sources being used in the article, and searches bring up nothing but a few brief mentions in a couple of "Top Ten" style humor pieces. There is no substantial coverage to indicate any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reception is completely trivial, so it still fails GNG. TTN (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Greenberg

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Given references are mostly of him as a guest contributor on Forbes and Entrepreneur. Csgir (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the references used are independent. I did a search and couldn't come up with anything better. The subject of the article does not meet
GNG. JSFarman (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Csgir (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. I couldn't find any independent significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 25 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creature template

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

Literally just a

WP:GNG as a non-notable aspect of D&D. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable concept with no secondary sources. This is just an attempt to explain game rules than an actual notable topic. Rorshacma (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 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 and redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing

)

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

Non-notable minor D&D monster. A search did not turn up any external critique, analysis or what have you from reliable sources. Fails

WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Super minor, unnotable fictional creature, so it certainly should not be an independent article. And, while it isn't the most obvious search term, I'm willing to bet that people who would actually do a search for this is looking for the article on the well known idiom. Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing per Rorshacma. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing per Rorshacma. I am uncertain if people will actually type this out in the search bar with the hyphens and all, but there is enough of a possibility that a redirect could be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge to
Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Titanium

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

Non-notable toy line, collection of minor details with no independent notability. TTN (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search found nothing notable about these toys. Fails
WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:46, 24 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. The argument that this is a case of

WP:BLP1E is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Arman Alif

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

who fails

(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, If you consider him as a musician, the article should be kept. According to second criteria a musician should have a single/album on country's music chart. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on Global Chart of YouTube. If you consider him in the criteria of any biography, he is notable. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. And the news was published by international (Deustche Welle), Indian (Ei Samay, News18) and Bangladeshi (Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho) media. The song was so popular that it was covered by crickerers. This song was before Adele and Taylor Swift's song on YouTube Global Chart ([see this link in English]). A people can get much coverage for single event. If his/her article fulfils notability criteria, he/she will be notable. For example, Dinesh Phadnis, Aditya Srivastava, Dayanand Shetty, Shivaji Satam etc.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

Alif does not pass
WP:SINGLENETWORK one. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a point on
WP:TOOSOON possibility at that article as he made historical record. I think all will be agree with me that Oporadhi was the most popular Bangladeshi song in April and May of 2018. There is a point on @Worldbruce: words. If you see Alexa Ranking of Bangladesh
YouTube is in the second position and Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, Yahoo are behind YouTube. Adele and Taylor Swift's song were behind a Bangladeshi song on YouTube Global Chart and the Bangladeshi song isn't the most popular song at that time, I won't believe it (I think anybody won't believe it).

There are clear references of his historical record. His song is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. The news was featured on most of the newspapers and tv channels of Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SINGLENETWORK, the YouTube Global Chart doesn't count. Basically it's meaningless. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Meril Prothom Alo Awards is a major award in the enterteinment arena of Bangladesh. But, according to nominator's words, the article doesn't fill the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) as he didn't win and there are two delete votes as per nom.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
(T) 08:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Meril Prothom Alo Awards is a major award in the entertainment arena of Bangladesh. He was nominated there as Best Singer (link on the article).--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As Per nom, fail Fail
WP:BLP1E.ChotoBhai (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If a singer's single secure its place on national chart, he/she will be notable according to notability guideline of Wikipedia. And the singer has his song. He also made historical record. His song Oporadhi is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. So, his article also fulfils general notability guideline. And Oporadhi is not a duet song, it is a single by Arman Alif and It is not his only single. So, it should not be deleted.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The basic notability criteria for biography is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This biography subject clearly meets this criteria as he has got significant coverage in at least 3 leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The "Too soon" concept applies when the basic criteria is not clearly met. -- Arman ^(Talk) 13:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft: Basically he is known for his song "Oporadhi", its clear
WP:NMUSIC I do not believe it. Let wait for some time to let him win any music competition or award.--Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As Per nom, Fail
WP:TOOSOON. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:13, 28 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharias David Idris

)

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

I am on a borderline with regards to the notability of this politician to warranty a wikipedia page. The first source is primary and much of a blog, the second is a government parlimentary site which does'nt mention him. The third is but only a searching link. The last source is more or less similar to the first. There is not much significant coverage of the individual in reliable independent sources that would signify his notability as a politician or real estate mogul 10MB (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He's a member of a national legislature and therefore passes
WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm all for saying that just because he passes an SNG that doesn't mean he's not notable. But as GPL93 points out there is verifiable evidence he is a member of a national legislature. While English is the official language, there are many other languages and I would reasonable expect for a member of the national legislature that there is notability proving sourcing somewhere. As the nom missed that he can be verified as a member of that body I'm going to think an adequate BEFORE was not done and default to the SNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep per GPL93. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:07, 28 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Mera González

)

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails

fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalez has appeared for s gijon b and for an I league side i.e. fully pro leagues so his article won't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA (talk • contribs)

Sporting Gijon B do not play in a

fully-professional league, they play in the Segunda División B which is not listed as it is semi-pro. He has not yet appeared in the I-League. Giant Snowman 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ya, Juan appeared only in Segunda B. From November

h a 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Saying "he will be notable in November" is

WP:CRYSTAL, while saying that obtaining coverage "will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists" is the wrong way round - coverage exists which is put into the article, not that the article will create coverage! Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I can add more stuff in the article, but if the article gets deleted, adding wont make any sense. 😄

h a 17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not seeing
WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 02:18, 25 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) 08:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Deniz Troshupa

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances for Skenderbeu despite what infobox says. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO, not seeing anything that's not a mention in passing on niche websites.
WP:NOTSTATS, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Has played seven matches professionally in the Football Superleague of Kosovo and UEFA Champions League qualification in the 2019 calendar year.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No pro-league appearances. FkpCascais (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can confirm he rode the pine for Skenderbeu. Fails
WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

^ https://www.transfermarkt.com/jacek-troshupa/leistungsdaten/spieler/402028

Delete - He never played in a competitive match for Skënderbeu, and although there is some online Albanian-language coverage it is routine stuff like that (transfer announcements, match reports). Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Not the clearest case, would like some feedback) I found some decent coverage: [20], [21], [22], [23] -
talk) 18:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

[24] - not at all, routine match report; [25] - interview, not used to establish notability; [26] - routine transfer report; [27] - could be fine, but I can't judge whether the source is notable. Still a strong delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate your response! A match report that exists because of Troshupa - he's the story. Interviews seem to split opinion, some say they count some don't - is there proper consensus for them not counting?
  talk) 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Match reports are
WP:MILL and don't count towards notability, and interviews on the source topic are too close to the source topic to count towards notability. There are some exceptions, I don't see that here in this case. He's simply at the moment a non-notable semi-professional footballer. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am simpathetic towards players in leagues of former-Yugoslavia, but I really can´t find any argument to keep him. If he had played even one game in Polish Ekstraklasa, even Albanian Superliga, but he didn´t, can´t do nothing for him, sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the failure to meet GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:45, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kelly (Irish footballer)

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Half of the article isn't about the subject himself. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated delete vote, as the prose is good but the referencing is terrible. Philfarrell any other sources to save this one? I know he may be discussed in newspapers of the time, but good luck searching for Jack Kelly. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Ping me if sources can be found. Giant Snowman 09:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep This is a player from the early years of Irish football so sourcing maybe tough to collect, I am inclined to keep per Cite #2 that reveals some good history. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article just meets
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. – Levivich 03:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WT:IE
might do better.

My own thoughts are that the contemporary newspapers might help. I doubt that the (subscriber-only)

Irish Times has much on football, tho other archives are probably available through the (subscriber-only) British Newspaper Archive, which has archived some 19th-century Irish papers and continued some into the 20th-century. See e.g. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/evening-herald-dublin

I hope this helps a little. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: check out [29], though I've tried three different (narrow) searches with no luck so far. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you! – Levivich 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree there must be sources ... being the top scorer in the first season of a 100-year old league is surely of note ... there's no end of match reports in Irish newspapers in the 1920s that I can find, even in other nations of Kelly scoring for big stuff. But hard to find anything in-depth ... normally books would be the prime source for that era. I did add one 1922 source for the FAI goal. It's not an easy search term, that's for sure. I'm surprised I can't find even a passing mention of his death ... is the date correct? Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – reluctantly, because I'm unable to find anything, and without sources, we can't write a proper article. – Levivich 02:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kelly was my grandfather. There are not many sources, especially online ones of soccer in the early days in Ireland. I have read match reports on microfilm in a Dublin library but not online. Match reports tend to be sparse and lacking description. The Thomas Walsh book is out of print but is available in the national library of Ireland. The Joe Dodds book is also out of print but I have a copy, provided by Joe himself. I have researched my grandfather extensively and for now there aren't any other sources that I can find. Eoghan Rice who has contributed to this is a respected soccer historian in Ireland. As more and more materials become available online it may be possible to add to this article in the future. I have just added further references to this and will do my best to find more. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoe shine boy mo (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bloch Rodwin

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

Article about a family court judge, not

ten year test for enduring significance, and none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while I could quibble with some of the claims in the article, she does seem to pass
WP:GNG. As far as my standards go, she would not normally pass the bar, pardon the pun. However, the media has treated her as an expert in her area of law, and she presided over a major case. So those are factors in her favor. I know that winning an award from a regional or specialty bar association isn't that big of a deal. I think this article should be kept, but it needs some editing down. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. FWIW, I don't know her. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in our series of over coverage of local lever figures in the Buffalo Metro Area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 09:40, 25 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Poorly sourced stub about little-known Dungeon & Dragons monsters. Fails

talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: If there were a
WP:NOT). Rockphed (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Well... there are plenty of lists of D&D monsters, but they are all up for deletion because they are literal directory listings without context. D&D monsters are not something "you" thought up one day, but they do fall under
WP:INDISCRIMINATE if they are unreferenced._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What I meant was that there isn't functional difference between something I conjure up from the aether in my basement and something some writer conjures up from the aether on behalf of wizards of the coast is nil until some third party starts talking about either idea. Rockphed (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Poorly sourced article on non-notable fictional creature. The only sources used are primary, and I have found no secondary sources that demonstrate notability. The list that the previous AFD recommended merging to has, itself, already been deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters

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

Same thing as

talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Yet again per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and ZVCVBNM. It suffers the same problems as the already mentioned and nominated lists. This one does try to include non-primary sources, but actually looking at them reveals that they are not about the monsters at all - they are generally information pages or reviews on some of the D&D books, and either don't talk about the monsters included at all, or mention them in extreme passing. The only non-primary source here that is actually talking about 5th edition monsters in detail is the one on the Oblex, and having one in-depth look at a singular monster does not justify the rest of the list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think D&D players (which, full disclosure, includes me) have much too high an opinion of the noteworthiness of their hobby. As I mentioned in one of the other deletion discussions, I don't think edition specific lists are viable. Maybe a list of the D&D specific takes on monsters (both the monsters they invented and ones they uniquely interpreted) would be viable, but this list does not have sources to support its notability. Rockphed (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge all just have one list article listing all the monsters from the series. There are many articles that exist for these monsters unique to the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. As long as they exist a list article showing links to them makes sense. There can be a column to list which ones were in each edition. Dream Focus 02:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Existence =/= notability. One has to demonstrate something passes GNG to be notable, which most of the articles in the list, if there is one, do not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then go nominate them for deletion. I see plenty of those listed have their own articles, specifically for the (Dungeons & Dragons) versions of the characters. Dream Focus 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting every entry in a list should not be a prerequisite for deleting a list. That's just Wikilawyering, not common sense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the other lists, this is game guide material. TTN (talk) 12:14, 30 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) 05:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters

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

Badly sourced list with no indication of the subject's real-world notability. Due to the lack of sources, this might also count as original research.

talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete
WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. A list of notable monsters (blue-linked or which can be sourced to third-parties) from the D&D universe across all editions would be reasonable, but not a list of each monster in each guidebook. --Masem (t) 05:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clear violation of
WP:GAMEGUIDE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. This list suffers the same problems as the other D&D monster lists also currently on AFD. There are no sources showing notability specifically for the 4th Edition group of monsters, and the list is just a transcription of the contents of the various 4th edition books. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. It certainly isn't badly sourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - D&D definitely has plenty of notable elements worthy of articles, but it does not need list after list of game guide minutia. One single list of those with articles and maybe those with some notability (one real world source but not enough to hold an article) would be appropriate. TTN (talk) 11:09, 26 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 keep. Withdraw my nomination. There is now enough

(non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Funeral Support Payment

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

No independent secondary sources cover this topic. Fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nominator - It is essentially a local or regional topic of concern in Scotland which has garnered no widespread coverage. It is probably a sub-topic of the Social Security Program of Scotland. I don't see anything remarkable or notable about this topic. This page seems to serve as notification more than an article. Hence, the following applies:
WP:indiscriminate---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous independent secondary sources cover this topic.----Pontificalibus 11:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawing my nomination. There is now enough
WP:RS to satisfy notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:12, 24 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) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guðmundur Andri Tryggvason

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails

WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. He's the son of Tryggvi Guðmundsson [30] and he does get some coverage by Icelandic media[31][32] but I wouldn't say it's enough for a GNG keep. Haukur (talk) 10:16, 24 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 per sources found during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus

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

Fails

WP:NBAND. No significant coverage outside of St. Louis, no tours, no recording contract, no noted performers. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources with any even remote indepdence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being fan of choral music, I
that's not enough. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NMUSIC. It's a professional chorus with years of history in Saint Louis (founded 1954). A history of the chorus is given in pages 49-54 of The Pullitzer Prize Archive -Cultural Criticism 1969-1990: From Architectural Damages to Press Imperfections, Heinz-Dietrich Fischer, Erika J. Fischer, Walter de Gruyter, K. G. Saur Verlag, 1992 (see here) Their concerts have been regularly critically reviewed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This review, for example, described the ensemble as "the region’s finest a cappella choir". Here are other reviews: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], etc. There's over one hundred concerts reviewed in that newspaper alone. Professional regional ensembles for classical music are typically verified on wikipedia through critical reviews in their city's paper. Additionally, the ensemble's work at performing and recording unusual repertoire has led to it's appearance in a number of academic publications; including [43], and [44]. Here is a snippet view of a Gramaphone review of one of their recordings. The chorus was also the main subject of an article in The Classical Outlook, Volume 77, Page 29.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand and reference, per 4meter4. I am convinced they are notable but that should show in the article, not only in this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4, who gives ample evidence of
WP:NOTABILITY. I also agree with Gerda Arendt that the article should be accordingly expanded, with relevant citations. Smerus (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per 4meter4; clearly meets
WP:NBAND. However, the article badly needs to be expanded with the references 4meter4 found. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above that indicate that the group are notable and the article should be kept and improved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 27 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo de la Cadena

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

Fails

ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - I found a number of articles in Spanish: El Sol de Mexico, El Universal, Amexpas, Tiempo de Boleros, Diario contraReplica - and these are just a few, there are more - (he even has a restaurant named after him, Rodrigo de la Cadena Cave) - I think there is enough non-trivial coverage to pass
WP:MUSICBIO - the article was originaly nominated for speedy deletion (CSD a7) two hours after it was created in 2007, but the notice was removed the same day - Epinoia (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@

ping}} me in replies) 06:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

- they both look like candidates for Redirects to Rodrigo de la Cadena if the article is kept - if the article is deleted they are probably candidates for deletion - Epinoia (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources articles identified above so that
WP:BEFORE and if no rs reviews can be found then redirecting would be the simplest option imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 27 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.

[1] https://www.transfermarkt.com/jacek-troshupa/leistungsdaten/spieler/402028

[1]