Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 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 no consensus. The raw vote is 8-6 favoring deletion so there is no lopsided clear consensus. Of course NOTAVOTE applies in all cases but after reading this insanely long discussion twice, I don't see how any reasonable person can conclude there is a discernible consensus one way or another. Relisting this would serve no useful purpose IMO. This close is w/o prejudice to a future renomination, but I would encourage letting the dust settle a bit before sending it back to AfD. For now though, it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Terant

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

Poorly sourced article about a lake with no claim to passing our notability standard for lakes. Per

WP:GEOLAND, lakes are accepted as notable provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist, and we do not just hand an automatic notability freebie to every lake in existence -- but this just states that the lake exists, and sources the fact to a map of the world rather than to any content that's actually about this lake, thus failing the "more than just statistics and coordinates" test. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - It is a stub about a lake. Sourced. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, per GEOLAND, we do not automatically keep all stubs about all lakes. We keep articles about lakes for which we can write and source some genuine substance, and do not keep articles about lakes for which we can only write and source that the lake exists, the end. Sourcing the lake's existence to a map of the world is not how you make a lake notable enough for a Wikipedia article — you need sources which specifically write about the lake itself in words. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that some sort of stamp of approval have been given to

Opiscoteo Lake (just two of quite a few others). Case closed about sources and words. This one trumps that threshold in comparison.BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've redirected those to their municipality articles, unless you have substantive sources providing more detail than a name. No one looking at orphan pages is not a stamp of approval, but you can nominate those for AFD if you want to waste others' time. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Juillet is a community (had population in 2011) on a lake of same name that is far bigger (more than 10 miles long)/more significant than Lac Terant. Its article was created by

List of lakes in Quebec. --Doncram (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 16:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GEOLAND, no signifiant coverage. And it's too small to merit inclusion in List of lakes of Quebec.----Pontificalibus 16:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Size has no merit on notability.BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm saying it's not notable due to lack of coverage, but even a redirect is not warranted due to it failing the relevant list-article size-based inclusion criteria.----Pontificalibus 20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- but the article needs to be expanded as it probably can be. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every lake is expandable at all, because not every lake is the subject of any significant reliable source coverage at all. So lakes are not kept pending the possibility of future improvement that may not be possible; they are kept only if the article is already substanced and sourced well enough to clear GEOLAND in their existing form. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some information from Quebec's Commission de Toponymie, the provincial agency in charge of geographic names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "some information" added? There was no information added explaining etymology of the lac's name, because the source has no information to give. --Doncram (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC) The toponymie source literally says that it has no information available about this lac. That is not useful information, and does not go towards notability! --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Commission de Toponymie is not a notability-making source; it just offers reconfirmation that the lake exists, and fails to support any substantive content of the type required by GEOLAND. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition of good source. And some expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence as one of Quebec's tens of thousands of lakes is not notability. If all we have is a name and location without substantive sources, it is very simply not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- POV does not trump guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GEOLAND is our guideline that says natural features must have sourcing for further information to establish notability, unclear what makes you think I have a bias with respect to this lake. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete - The current sources do nothing but establish the lake's existence and location, and does nothing to demonstrate notability. I have also been unable to locate any additional sources that go beyond this. Per
WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", which does not appear to be the case with this lake. As an alternative, I would not be opposed if this were redirected to Lac-Walker, Quebec instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: From satellite view in Google (where the lake is unnamed) and Bing (where the lake is named), it is about half a mile long, running mostly north-south. It has a couple islands at least. Maybe there is some restriction on accuracy allowed for viewing in this area, because it comes up then shrinks away and I cannot zoom in again on it. Maybe that is due to military reasons or whatever, and I am not Donald Trump so I can't release a more detailed photo. Anyhow, it is much more substantial than a pond, say. I would be inclined to "Keep" and tag for development. --Doncram (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is outside, just to the west, of the boundary of the "projet de parc national du Lac Walker", which is a proposed National Park, which is not yet covered in Wikipedia, which is proceeding by "petits pas" (small steps) https://macotenord.com/des-petits-pas-vers-un-parc-national-au-lac-walker/. Can see that by comparison of Bing map vs. map of the projet,here. A bit more at here. For developing wikipedia, it would be better to start an article covering this park proposal, which could include a list of lacs which it contains, and any separate articles about any of its lacs could probably be redirected to there.

Parc National du Lac-Walker and Lake Walker National Park are currently redlinks. --Doncram (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The proposed park would include

Lac Jumbo, but not Lac Terant, which is further west. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The region of Lac-Walker, Quebec is far far far far far too big to think about mentioning this lac in the article. I am sure it is not within the top 1,000 lacs in the region! Maybe not in the top 10,000 lacs. So I do not agree with User:Rorshacma's suggestion to redirect as an alternative to deletion; in general IMHO a redirect should only go to a place which provides some info about the topic. Currently there is no info about this topic in its article, besides its location and name. Which is conveyed by Bing maps already, and we add no value to that, so I am becoming skeptical about this article.

I notice that there are a good number of lacs within the proposed national park which are bigger than Lac Terant and do not have Wikipedia articles, e.g. Lac Larry. If User:BabbaQ (creator of the Lac Terant article) is interested in lacs IMHO they should be working from "more important" down, not just working through a random list of all lacs that exist in the world. And even the "more important" ones don't have to have separate articles, it is more appropriate to cover them in list-articles or articles about national parks or whatever that include lists of lacs. --Doncram (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this really seems minor, and is less important than many larger lacs even in the same region. And seems not worth mentioning in any list-article or any other article in Wikipedia, ever! (Unless someone is that interested in the huge "reserve faunique" area that it is located in map, to create an article about that and mention it within a list of lacs in that article, perhaps, though such a list of lacs maybe should not even include it. But even if it did then this lac should not get a separate article; there is nothing at all to say about it further than its location, better covered in the list of lacs. If this continues to exist it would only ever have non-mainspace links, e.g. from this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 09:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be worth mentioning the lake at Lac-Walker, Quebec if this isn't kept.. Or a List of lakes of Lac-Walker, Quebec if it's not deemed notable enough to mention in that as it's 18,000 + km2. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not appropriate to mention this speck, within an article about that vast area, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Wow, thanks owed to
Port-Cartier-Sept-Îles Wildlife Reserve (reserve faunique, much larger area). The Parc National one appropriately includes a list of lakes that it contains, which Aymatth2 chose from those lakes large enough to be visible and named in the map of the Parc. Lac Terant is within the reserve faunique, but is nowhere near big enough to be mentioned among any list of lakes in the reserve; only those shown in the map of the reserve
might deserve mention in the article about the reserve.

I think a new standard for notability of lakes is emerging: A lake is NOT notable, should not be covered in a separate Wikipedia article, if it is not at least mentioned in an established/valid Wikipedia article that has reasonable standards. I.e., the mention must establish the significance of the lake in a reasonable context, e.g. as one of the 20 or so substantial lakes included in a national park, where all those are mentioned in the national park article. But it is not reasonable to name unsubstantial lakes in the national park article. There needs to be a reasonable standard for mention. And, even if a lake is named in a legitimate article containing a list of lakes, that does not mean an article is justified yet. Only if there is substantial, valid sourced information that does not fit comfortably in a table row or otherwise in the legitimate list of lakes article. Note, if only location (latitute and longitude) and statistics like area or length or elevation are available, then it is BETTER to cover a substantial lake only in the corresponding list-article, where a corresponding {{GeoGroup}} can display the locations of all the lakes, and where RELATIVE INFORMATION is created/provided. For example, where the reader can see that the subject lake is located to the southeast of the center of all the lakes, or whatever, and that it is mid-sized relative to other lakes in the region. A separate article just giving location and size would convey LESS INFORMATION than having the lake covered in a table row in a list-article. It is reasonable to redirect the lake's name to the spot in the list-article where it is covered, using an {{anchor}} in free text or using an "id=" field in a table.

Here, about this Lac Terant, it is not reasonable for it to be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated in
WP:GEOLAND
guideline says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." The article as it is fails the GEOLAND test since it gives no more than the coordinates and the administrative region, which can be derived from them. Nothing would be lost if it were redirected to an anchor in list of lakes that gave the same information:

Lac Terant	50°28′35″N 67°44′55″W / 50.47639°N 67.74861°W / 50.47639; -67.74861	Sept-Rivières Regional County Municipality	Côte-Nord	Quebec

There would be a loss if the title were wiped out with no redirect to such a list, since Wikipedia would lose some function as a gazetteer. See also this discussion. If more information is known to exist, for example about the terrain, geology, drainage, climate, water quality, fish etc., the article should presumably be kept and expanded. The bot-generated w:sv:Lac Terant indicates that more information is available. If we do not want to go down that route, it should at least redirect to a table entry. But it is not at all obvious how the table would be created and what its scope would be. There are 500,000 lakes in Quebec, many of them not in any protected area but just in a huge municipality like Jamésie. By river basin maybe? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By river basin sounds promising, i.e. it might possibly be reasonable for Lac Terant to be named as one of the contributing water sources in the article on whatever is the big lake to its left on maps, into which it drains, or to the larger river system that drains that lake. (Again that doesn't mean we need a separate article on Lac Terant; the term should probably redirect to the river system article which mentions it.) Hmm, neither Google maps nor Bing maps contain elevation/altitude lines, which do appear on some map that I was looking at earlier, which shows the descent of a stream/river out of the lake going down that way.

By the way, for lake aficionados here, can you believe, on Google or Bing maps, the astonishing "annular lake" somewhat to the north of Lac Terant? Wow, that looks very weird. Yes there is a Wikipedia article explaining it. I leave it to you to figure it out.

But I am editing again to point out that WIKIPEDIA CANNOT BE A GAZETTEER OF LAKES! The article on the province of Quebec cites this source in asserting that Quebec has more than 500,000 lacs. The province has about 8 million people. Leave out 4 million in the metropolitan area of Montreal, and 800,000 in the Quebec City area, and 156,000 in

Trois-Rivieres (okay i confess i am not really sure if that is not double-counting one way or the other), and you are down to about 3 million people in the province outside of the 3 biggest cities. WE CANNOT HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVERY RURAL PERSON IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC! Pulleez, i do not want to know about most of them! (Dégoûtant, la plupart d'entre eux mangent probablement de la poutine!) De même, je ne veux pas en savoir plus de 500,000 lacs dans la province! Really, imagine that. We do not want an article about each hunter/farmer/monk/nun in the world, and the number of lacs is comparable! Certains sont probablement laids. Okay, Quebec is lake-heavy, having 12 percent of its surface area being fresh water, but still. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You can see contour lines in Google. Click on 50°28′35″N 67°44′55″W / 50.47639°N 67.74861°W, scroll down to "Google maps" and click "Terrain. One difference between lakes and people is that lakes stay around a lot longer. All that poutine has to take its toll. I imagine the 500,000 figure includes a lot of pond-sized "lakes". Probably there are less than 50,000 where you could not shoot an arrow and hit a tree on the other side. There is plenty of space in Wikipedia to hold them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, well that is not how Wikipedia works, it is not just about space being available, it is about sources providing actual coverage being available, and it is about potential reader interest. We are trying to write an encyclopedia covering notable topics, as opposed to being a

wp:DIRECTORY enumerating all the examples of everything no matter how non-encyclopedic. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed as Aymatth2 says, Wikipedia:Five pillars sates "our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It does NOT say "our encyclopedia is a gazetteer". Encyclopedia articles discuss notable subjects in detail, and a list of 50,000 lakes in Quebec where you could not shoot an arrow across is not a notable subject, whatever article(s) the list entries are shoe-horned into ----Pontificalibus 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia can contain lists, which are useful to readers. An article on a railway line may list the stations on the line, including stations that will never have stand-alone articles. An article on a protected area may list the lakes, rivers and peaks, giving information like coordinates, area, length and elevation, including items that may never have stand-alone articles. A redirect page pointing to an entry in a list like this may be useful to readers. There is no maintenance issue: natural features do not move around a lot. If someone wants to create a list of lakes with basic information about those lakes, they are adding value. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several editors here participated in some past AFDs related to creation of articles about "McArthur Lake" or similar. This discussion reminded me of that past brouhaha, in which I think notability of lakes was not well-understood, and things were confused by active editing changing articles between covering a single lake or being a disambiguation page or whatever. To clean up from that, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur, just opened. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why ask for input of another article AfD here. BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still stand by my comment and !vote of Keep based on guidelines. This article has no part in other List of.. articles. And shouldn’t be part of other AfD processess like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur. I see no Delete !vote mentioning any guideline or strong rationale for deletion except POV. Guidelines always trumps POV.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what
  WP:GEOLAND, and this simply does not meet that standard! Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Most lakes of this size are notable. As shown by the Swedish version of the article, more can be added on the terrain, climate, local population etc. The lake has almost certainly been visited by geologists, who will have discussed the rocks. It must be named after someone... The article as it stands gives some information, and there is good reason to expect that it will be expanded to give more. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the content or links in the Swedish page – which was autogenerated by a bot! – is about the lake itself at all, it's simple generalizations from NASA data that apply to the entirety of Sept-Rivières Regional County Municipality or what have you. Do you really think geologists have written details about all 500,000 lakes in Quebec? That's it's not the same as all of the other thousand lakes within ten miles of it? You can't just hand-wave assumptions about what is known and that it'll be expanded, an article needs actual sources discussing the subject to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to see a lake as just a three-dimensional volume of water with a flat upper surface and an irregular lower surface. There are bumps in the lower surface where rocks intrude, and holes where the fish fit in, but the rocks and fish are not part of the lake itself. The lake changes temperature from time to time, but the changes are a factor of the local climate, not specific to the lake. It is possible to see a lake this way, but that is not what our readers want. When does it freeze and when does it thaw? What kinds of fish can they catch, and how many? What is the scenery like? Do the rocks hold gold or uranium? Where does the name come from? Is there a campsite? Can you reach other lakes? Yes, a lot of this information will be common to other lakes in the region, but what matters is whether it is accurate and meets our readers' needs. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What also matters is our damn notability guidelines and this doesn't pass them! Google Maps indicates this lake is 50 miles from the nearest road, with hundreds of other lakes within that radius. We're not a travel guide for fishermen but no, it doesn't look like there's a campsite there! All we have is a name and coordinates, which is not adequate to keep as a separate article. Unclear where "Most lakes of this size are notable" nonsense comes from; this lake is a mere 600m x 200m and that is not the basis of GEOLAND or standing precedent.

Keep. Ithink geologists and local people do have recorded information about almost any lake, and it is only necessary to find it. The only question is to what extent these should be comination articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So find it! You're usually good with the guidelines but you can't say all of the half million lakes in Quebec are automatically individually notable because you think such information is recorded about each one. You're allowed to say Merge but until this supposed local lore shows up, we've got an interminable
  List of lakes in Quebec. Reywas92^Talk 08:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I am not sure that there are any local people, because the nearest settlements and roads are so many lakes away. If any geologists have written about it in detail then such writing it shouldn't be hard to find via the usual routes for academic searches.----Pontificalibus 20:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The location and coordinates of the lake is given, but no additional information related to notability is provided. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikoo.Amini: The question is not what the article is now, but what it could become. It should be deleted if it is highly unlikely that reliable sources have discussed it in any detail, and that anything more than coordinates and basic statistics will ever be available. But if there is potential it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the article would benefit the project. And as basically no guideline towards deletion has been presented by any of the Delete !votes while Keep !votes has been strong it should be kept in my opinion. And possibly revisited in six months if ever. WP:GNG being met trumps still.BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to lie? Yes, a clear guideline has been presented, and no,
WP:GNG is NOT met! A database entry with merely a name and coordinates is not "significant coverage"; it is a single source, not "sources"; and it would only create a presumption, not guarantee, of notability, since having one-line articles on the millions of tiny lakes in existence sourced only to a database is clearly "an indiscriminate collection of information." Go away. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The deletion arguments may be summarized as 1) there are far too many lakes to fit into Wikipedia 2) there is no evidence that this lake is notable 3) all we know about it is its coordinates. The first point can be dismissed. There are fewer lakes of this size than species of life, they rarely change, space is not a concern and lake articles do not get in the way of readers looking for other information. To the second point, the Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." A lake article does not have to meet the General notability guideline; we just have to know there is enough information for a meaningful article.

The third point is wrong. We know the lake is in hilly country at about 660 metres (2,170 ft) and drains to the west into the north arm of Lake Sainte-Anne in the lower Toulnustouc River basin. It is in the boreal climate zone and is mainly surrounded by coniferous forest. We know the average monthly temperatures and rainfall, and we know about the geology of the area in detail. It has been supplying newsprint to the Chicago Tribune since the 1920s. It has been logged, replanted and logged again. The rivers have been dammed, mines opened, railways built, environmental impacts studied.This is far from untouched wilderness. There are bound to be offline sources that give more information.

I can pump up the article a bit if the decision is to keep it. I question what benefit there would be to deleting it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What information about the lake beyond statistics is known to exist? Information about the region, climate, surrounding forest etc is not information about the lake. It’s all very well asserting that written sources exist, but that’s not the same as knowing they exist. I assert that they may not exist, it’s perfectly conceivable that all sorts of human activity has taken place around the lake without anyone writing about the lake and publishing it.—--Pontificalibus 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We know the lake is made of water. Our readers can probably guess that. I admit that Information about streams that flow into and out of it, rain and snow that falls into it, the temperature of the air above it, the rocks that lie under it, trees that lean over it, fish that swim in it and so on is not about the lake itself, which is made of water. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have located publications such as "The Microclimate of Lac Terant: a Multi-year Analysis" or a "Fish Species in Ontario Lakes: The Peculiar Case of Lac Terant" then we can add that information. Otherwise you are just making presumptions that could easily be erroneous. It would be an analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources, in violation of

WP:SYNTH. Of course we can talk about the characteristics of the region etc in the article, but we shouldn't imply that such information is actually verified information about the lake in an attempt to seem like we are satisfying GEOLAND. --Pontificalibus 06:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)--06:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I would be very suspicious of a report named "Fish Species in Ontario Lakes: The Peculiar Case of Lac Terant", regardless of who published it. But if a map made by a government agency shows that as of 2017 the lake was in an area of commercial forestry with trees over 30 years of age, it would not be

WP:SYNTH to say that a map made by a government agency shows that as of 2017 the lake was in an area of commercial forestry with trees over 30 years of age. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

So by "pump up the article a bit" you mean make a

WP:REFBOMB? What benefit is an article where no content is about the subject itself? Of the facts you just stated, which came from sources talking about Lac Terant, and which are generic references to eastern Quebec? The fact that you can get weather data for anywhere in the world does not mean any geographic point in the world can get its own article. Jumbo Lake is an embarrassing textbook example of a REFBOMB: the database entry with coordinates at Commission de toponymie de Quebec is literally the only one that's about it! Yet for some reason you randomly add the etymology of nearby rivers because we don't even have an origin for the lake itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Reywas92: you may be getting confused between the primary purpose of citations, which is to show where the information in an article comes from, and the secondary use which is to show that the subject is notable. Even quite experienced editors get mixed up over this. All statements should be backed up by citations, whether or not they help establish notability. With articles on geographical features, notability is based on information provided or known to be available, not on citations. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment on the relevant guideline,
WP:GEOLAND
"Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Some participants e.g. Aymatth2 contend that this means a feature is notable if we have any information about its surroundings. This would mean that every such feature is notable, because we always know what continent that mountain is on, what the average temperature of that lake is measured by satellite etc.. However the purpose of this guideline was clearly not to make every feature notable, otherwise it would simply state that. The guideline gives an example of a river island with no information available except name and location and states that it should probably be described in an article on the river. Of course in such a case we may know lots about the river, but that doesn’t mean we should use that information to try and justify a separate article about the island, because again, that would mean every such feature would have a separate article and that’s not what the guideline intends.

It seems quite clear that unless we can find a source giving information specifically about the lake, then a separate article is not supported by the guideline, just like the river island given as the example. Assuming that such sources are out there somewhere is not sufficient, otherwise every such feature could be argued as being notable - the guideline states that information must be known to exist.----Pontificalibus 06:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a separate article is justified here. Per WP:GNG as reliable third party sources. Per sourcing overall. Per above average obvious interest per this AfD of an supposed ”irrelevant river”. GEOLAND could apply, but in favour of keeping the article. Sources are decent enough for inclusion. My Keep !vote stands.BabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero of the sources in the article are GNG-eligible media coverage — it's still referenced entirely to

WP:ROUTINE directories and maps, not to any evidence of anybody writing prose content about the lake. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Not only can I not find any sources about this lake, I can't even find any document depositories where sources of this lake are likely to be. The unincorporated municipality that encompasses it does not seem to have a public library. Until some poor schlub gets murdered and dumped in this lake, I don't think an article about it is justified. I am not sure that this can even go in a list. Rockphed (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lake would have been discussed in the pre-internet age when Lake Sainte-Anne was first damned by Hydro-Québec. The forestry people have records. We know a lot about the location, climate and surroundings. But I would be opposed to disposing of a body in the lake to save the article from deletion. That seems too extreme. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:GEOLAND says lakes may be notable provided there is enough information beyond statistics and coordinates - the article references merely establish that the lake exists, not that it is notable - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It is a sourced stub about a lake. Why is there a problem? If we keep broading the the defintion of notable , we will end up with an encyclopedia about nothing.- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this debate is moving toward "keep", or at least "no consensus", despite the fact the article is so far just a stub, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumbo Lake, on a more substantial article, is moving towards "delete". I would prefer to keep both of them, or failing that to redirect to broader articles holding what information we have about them. But it seems that the AfD process is working randomly here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 14 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayvi Bouzo

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

I came across this article while doing NPP; I first prodded it, but the prod was declined, so I am bringing it here. The subject is a journalist and a bureau chief for

WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - journalist for a small outfit; lacking
WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep main host of a political TV shows The and interview with high level politician people. sources are reliable and this source [1] is an interview with her in Arabic. also she has participated in a meeting with President Trump, because of discussing about Syria and middle east as a notable journalist.Ms.bletvok (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably
talk) 23:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I found [2] that's a fully-described interview with her as a well-known Syrian television presenter in Arabic. I'm fluent in Arabic and the interview is most about her career in journalism and television. Furthermore, [3] is her interview with
WP:GNG.Fatzaof (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet
WP:JOURNALIST - just having a job on TV is not notable - interviews are not reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the user Epinoia wrote that sources are not reliable. as I know VOA is considering as a reliable source and as the user Fatzaof wrote, in the interview she is talking about herself as a journalist. I haven't used unreliable sources in writing the article and after nominating article for deletion, I added more sources. Orient TV of Orient News is one of famous television in Syria. she is presenter of one of most popular tv shows of that. Voa source and other Arabic and english source of article establish her notability as a journalist.Nasin3030 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources of article is supporting content of article and I yhink reliable sources of article establish notability. So I think subject meets
WP:GNG.صدیق صبري (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment
WP:SIGCOV and notability, and the Kayla's List source I do not have access to. Since I do not speak or read Arabic I cannot judge the validity of the remaining sources so am unable to judge notability overall, but I just wanted to chip in what sources count on Wikipedia for notability and what sources don't. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Article is entirely synthesis and original research. All (or almost all) of the sources are primary sources from which some information has been gleaned. The standard for notability for a journalist is not if they report the news in a notable way, it is if they are the news in a notable way. Rockphed (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article includes fully-described interviews that establish subject as a well-known television presenter and journalist. Voice of America and Wall Street Journal, two highly-reliable sources, prove notability. The Wall Street Journal article references the subject meeting U.S. President Donald Trump, further establishing notability. The WSJ article establishes that the meeting with President Donald Trump was due to her notability as a journalist and not a random encounter. --Mgard631 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Wikipedia:Notability (journalists), covering article by multiple sources in Arabic & English, subject meets GNG. Also subject is one of main personality of Orient News, which is notanle Media group.Abtehas98 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 14 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. Lack of independent notability. There's no bar to creating a redirect, but there wasn't really a consensus for one in the discussion, so I leave that for interested editors. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Viper Assassination Squad

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

Violates

WP:WAF

. Almost entirely composed of fancruft - original research and extensive plot description, with almost no out-of-universe coverage and no demonstration of notability.

This nom follows the deletion of two other articles connected to Kill Bill - see

talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable -- a list of sources follows. The following policies therefore indicate that the topic should not be deleted:
WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Warrior Women: Gender, Race, and the Transnational Chinese Action Star
Hetero: Queering Representations of Straightness
Mirror Images: Popular Culture and Education
Movie Greats: A Critical Study of Classic Cinema
Race on the QT: Blackness and the Films of Quentin Tarantino
How to Analyze the Films of Quentin Tarantino
Mommy Angst: Motherhood in American Popular Culture
Movies and the Meaning of Life: Philosophers Take on Hollywood
Super Bitches and Action Babes: The Female Hero in Popular Cinema, 1970-2006
The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. militarism and popular culture
Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy
The Aesthetics of Violence in Contemporary Media
The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen

In my view, as with the
talk) 22:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Such sources may be browsed by using the Google Books link above. The first of them is Education and Popular Culture: Chiasmatic Reflections in Almodovar's Bad Education and Tarantino's Kill Bill which has two solid paragraphs specifically about the topic saying things like "The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad is indeed a clan; abbreviating their titles as "DiVAS" iplies that they are a group of flamboyant females. The DiVAS are an allusion to a mixture of woman, snakes, temptation...". This clearly passes
WP:NEXIST which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." There's not the slightest case for deletion as all our guidelines and policies indicate otherwise. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and restore
List of Kill Bill characters
too. Particularly as this seems to be a single-handed war of attrition by one editor, nominating individual articles one-by-one until there are none left.

This is not a minor film. This is Hollywood A-list stuff: for the criticial reception, for the popular revenue, for the director, for the cast. This is as big as films get. It is unbelievable to claim that "this cannot be sourced" and complaints of "fancruft" are just meaningless handwaves at

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a shameful series of deletions and they are damaging to the encylopedia overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I generally ignore accusations of bad-faith editing, but I feel I ought to respond to this. I have nominated these articles for deletion as part of a general effort to clean up Tarantino-related articles, which I have worked on here and there for years. This is not a case of
talk) 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As per his usual MO of just spamming useless references, I'm sure I can discount literally all of those sources as nonsense without looking at them. I doubt they are mentioned in any capacity worth including in the article. The individual characters and the group don't have anything worthwhile to discuss. This is best left to a Fandom wiki. TTN (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't even looked at the sources, but you reject them anyway, with an attack on the editor bringing them? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is a completely disingenuous inclusionist who blatantly ignores "non-trivial coverage" to the point of ridiculousness. I can't take any source he produces in good faith. TTN (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the obvious bad faith dishonest deletionist troll... --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a topic unproven to warrant being standalone and apart from the film articles. The films are the notable topics, and for elements of the film to be separated out, these elements need to be decisively highlighted as standout and/or have so many different details that content has to be split out. I suggest having a
Kill Bill article that can combine highlights from both films and where a cross-film list of characters can be had. If that list gets long enough with coverage from secondary sources, for a character, a group of characters, or a significant portion of all characters, then there could be an standalone article split off. There is a lot of coverage about Kill Bill that makes it fairly likely that this is possible, but the work needs to be done to show that there is something that can be split out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Erik. The movies are undoubtedly notable, but there is nothing to support the independent notability of this spinoff article's subject. While just searching for the title of the group certainly comes up with plenty of hits, as demonstrated above, actually looking through them shows that they pretty much fall into two categories - those that are talk about the group only in terms of plot summary (which is already covered in depth in the articles of the two films), and those that mention them briefly while talking in-depth about
Beatrix Kiddo (who is notable, and as such, has a full article that can probably be expanded substantially with some of these books). None of them, however, demonstrate that the group can be discussed in any meaningful way that requires an independent article, when all of the information is already included, and much better placed, in the articles on the films. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:JUSTPLOT. The article does not support any secondary commentary, and contains no evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The content is simply not encyclopedic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per others. The article is just plot with a bit of trivia tacked on at the end, there is no commentary and nothing to suggest independent notability for this particular element of the film. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to lack of any actual reason to delete. Clear case of
~~WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The nominator quoted a policy and guideline that he believes the article violates. That is TWO clear reasons to delete. He may well be incorrect in the conclusions he has arrived but it is factually wrong to say there is a "lack of any actual reason to delete". Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't actually violate those, there is no reason to delete this article. Someone can seriously believe he is a banana, but it doesn't make it so. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would still make it not
WP:IDONTLIKEIT - your, somewhat dubious, explanation and that accusation can't co-exist. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It concerns something that appears in two major films that have been seen by millions of people around the world and that has been written about in secondary sources. By any logical standard, this topic is notable and verifiable. There is no benefit to this site or to anyone by deleting this information. Conversely, having this content benefits those readers interested in learning more about this notable topic. --~~24.101.156.239 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it merely means that the films are notable. I does not mean that individual plot elements are notable in and of themselves, per
WP:ILIKEIT, if we're just going to cite guidelines and essays. PC78 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Characters of films can also be notable in their on right. These characters are spoofed on things like Robot Chicken even. You can also buy shirts of them (do a Google search). "It's not useful to me personally" and "I don't personally like it" are not a valid reason for deletion. --~~24.101.156.239 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those have been cited as reasons for deletion in this discussion. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted that the above IP user has already been put on a ban for some ridiculous shenanigans in AFDs, and can probably be safely disregarded. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed, and with a sockpuppet investigation to boot. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor fictional characters in Tarantino film. No evidence that anything can be said about them outside of in-universe plot summary. I would also encourage the closer to trout Andrew Davidson for what was obviously a rudimentary GBooks search for the article title and then copy-pasting a bunch of random book titles that came up, with no effort to figure out what was in those books that could be used to build an article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I always dislike voting for the deletion of an article, particularly for one on a fictional character or in this case, a set of fictional characters. However, I am not convinced that the characters as a group have enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I do appreciate the sources listed by Andrew Davidson, but I am not fully convinced that they are enough. They do refer this squad somewhat, but I am less than certain. I could see those sources being beneficial to the article for
Elle Driver getting independent articles. I do not think a redirect would be particularly helpful as I am not sure anyone will type this full phrase out in the search box/bar. Again, I appreciate Andrew Davidson's comments and I personally love fictional character articles, but for me, I am leaning toward delete. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, insufficiently notable to stand on its own as an article. An example of fancruft. I'm not even going to bother addressing the supposed sources, as it's now a case of "the boy who cried KEEP!" and I can assume they are extremely low quality ones.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to
talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Understandable, I would not be opposed to a redirect. The group is also mentioned in the article for Kill Bill: Volume 2. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - no evidence of notability established in this article, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osgood State Bank

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

Local bank in Ohio, fails

WP:NCORP. Although it was established in 1915, the bank doesn't have substantial press coverage and book mentions to establish notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment created by User:Osgoodstatebank, so a possible COI.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am only finding some local coverage and brief mentions. Nothing that satisfies
WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Good reminder that not all banks pass
WP:NCORP. I am seeing only local press 'coverage' of its business as usual press releases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 13 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 consensus for this topic is to delete. This close does not mean that a redirect at a different name cannot be done. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selah (Vic Mignogna album)

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

Barely a stub and album is not notable Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find much in the way of coverage from reliable sources on this album, so it doesn't pass
WP:NALBUM. I would have suggested that it be redirected to Vic Mignogna, as the album is already listed on his discography on that page, but the article title is completely useless as a search term. Not only is it a very unlikely search term, its not even the correct, full title of the album, which, as stated in the actual content of the article, is "Selah – Music for the Quiet Time". That said, it might not be a bad idea to create a redirect page under the correct album title. Rorshacma (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Rorshacma. I agree that a redirect under the correct album title would be ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be a redirect to the Vic Mignogna page or this one? I am not sure what the point of creating a redirect is if this article isn't deemed notable enough to have its own page in the first place. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be a redirect to Mignogna’s page. Redirects are often used for non-notable albums because information about its release should be contained in the artist’s main page, and a redirect is helpful for users who look up the album and want to know more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone's reasoning above. Delete this album title then create a redirect named Selah: Music for the Quiet Time and send it to the Vic Mignogna article. That is the album's actual title, though the album is not notable itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I suppose it might be easier to Move (re-title) this article to the correct Selah: Music for the Quiet Time and then redirect THAT to Vic Mignogna. Admins can decide whichever procedure is proper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider a move, but that would make sense to me. Thank you for raising that option. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NALBUM, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" - there's nothing to merge here, so a redirect seems appropriate - Epinoia (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabienne Weber

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:NFOOTY as she has not played in a FPL Seasider91 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable footbal player. Barca (talk) 13:47, 11 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 redirect to Louis van Gasteren. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping the page as a stand alone article. Past that things get fuzzy. There were a couple of calls for a merge along with several straight delete comments. IMO the best course is to call this a redirect which is what the OP originally was calling for. I note that the page history is preserved and this close is w/o prejudice to anyone who wants to undertake a selective merge to the targeted page. Any concerns about merged material can be handled in the customary manner via a talk page discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Words (1997 film)

)

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

I boldly redirected this article to the director's page but was twice-reverted.

Thus, under the purview of

WP:ATD-R, I am asking the community to opine and decide on the merits of preserving this page as a standalone entry or redirecting it to the article about its film-director (Louis van Gasteren) / master-film (Nema aviona za Zagreb

).

The argument is the same, as invoked in the

WP:NFILM

.

Two of the sources are from Meher Baba's biography-cum-hagiography by one of his closest cult-associates. One is from Meher Baba's trustee. Another is from MeherBaba's association in UK. Another is (finally!) a non-universe source comprising of a collection of Gasteren's diary entries.

The two lone dissidents (who even opposed a redirect) in the previous AfD invoked an

other staff exists

focused argument which was coupled with false aspersions and personal attacks on the nominator and others.

Paging @GSS, StrayBolt, Hoverfish, Dazedbythebell, Fitindia, and Randy Kryn:-- all the participants of the previous AfD. ∯WBG^converse 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per last discussion and the notability of this documentary. The uniqueness of this film, as defined on its page, is historically important. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and whoops, the nominator is now removing data from the article even while saying in the edit summary that one source, which alone could save this page, is a good source "The latter is a reliable book but we need page numbers and all that". Play fair, and put it back. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, I just checked the book and it contains nothing about the film, except listing it in his extended filmography-list, at the end of the book, that contains 58 entries. Since I am not denying that Gasteren did not produce the film (or something like that), the source has zero non-superfluous relevance. Also dropping in a voluminous book w/o mentioning page numbers/chapter is awful bibliographic practice. ∯WBG^converse 20:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book have an index? In other news, the famed director and now-famous cinematograph are extensively directly quoted in one of the sources you don't count as a source. The quotes seem notable and were obtained journalistically. And where is the diary entry you mentioned earlier, is it the source in Dutch (can't read Dutch)? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book has an index, which does not mention the film. FWIW, I can access the book from both JSTOR and DeGruyter which provide soft-copies in the form of searchable pdfs.

Meher Baba's trust sourcing bytes from filmmakers (and associates) ain't obviously a reliable source. ∯WBG^converse 20:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently needed comment, as with the last set of M. Baba nominations, which the nominator recently described as "fun", I want to say and get on the record again that I am not a member of Baba's groups or religion, have only read maybe two pages of one of his books, met one of his disciples once, have never advocated for Baba's views of life (well, have sung "Don't Worry, Be Happy" and have a singing trophy-fish somewhere that sings the song) and do not have a Baba mustache. The subject is historically important, and the documentary in relationship to the subject is historically important. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or if not kept, merge. Film and person are two different things. Appearance of impropriety to remove material from an article while seeking its deletion, when the material could be tagged within the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am so pleased to read the first line; genuinely thought that films and persons are same. ∯WBG^converse 20:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per
User:Spartaz in closing "Discussion about redirect or merge can continue on article talk." Why use AfD? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Can't recall the specific thread but I have closed a process-RfC, about a year back that explicitly authorized AfDs as a correct venue for challenging reverted redirections, after a BR cycle. ∯WBG^converse 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolick, read Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_71#"AFD_is_not_for_redirecting"?. ∯WBG^converse 09:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous comment; Non-notable documentary film with no significant coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM so delete. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the current sourcing, 1 is a dead link, one is a primary source, and one is a promotional site. The final ref isn't really go in-depth about this film. Searches turned up virtually zero anything else about this documentary. While
WP:NOTINHERITED, is definitely a policy, I understand Randy Kryn's point about the historicity of the film. However, the dearth of sourcing leaves me in the delete camp.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As per my last vote on the
WP:NFILM. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 17:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - It should be merged into a new section of WP:NFILM. Open to a section in Louis van Gasteren. StrayBolt (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There's nothing to merge. A redirect, at most. ∯WBG^converse 08:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, I will prefer Gasteren as a target since, there's RSs confirming it as his work but none linking it to Nema Zagreb, at all. It's very likely to be true but still, ..... ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source connecting the two films.[4] StrayBolt (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StrayBolt, how precisely does the source supports the linkage? The 6 films are provided as his detailed works on each of the variety of topics, entertained in Nema Zagreb. ∯WBG^converse 16:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to director
WP:NFO which require that a film has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics published in reliable independent sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:06, 14 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. Lack of sources to show notability per
WP:GEOLAND. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jumbo Lake

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

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

This topic is non-notable, there is no information available about this lake besides the fact of its existence and location (which implies elevation, too), plus the fact of when it was registered in a geographic names database. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer about lakes, in part because there are too many of them (more than 500,000 in Quebec alone) and there is nothing substantial to say about most of them. Here, the article is all padding, with stuff about the region incorporated. The creator asserts at its Talk page that "I do not think notability is a key concern with a lake." A fact that they think is remarkable (that the region includes a lake named Jumbo, a river named Ronald, and a river named McDonald) might possibly be mentioned in an article about the region, instead. (However I personally don't "get" that supposed coincidence; the 2008
wp:BEFORE finds nothing available. Doncram (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to information merged into MacDonald River (Quebec), as discussed on the article's talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see anything worth merging, myself, but could you share what statement or passage you think should be included there? --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Aymatth2 is adding stuff purportedly about Jumbo Lake to the MacDonald River article. I may possibly object to every single element they add there, in which case it would not be reasonable to include stuff there or to redirect Jumbo Lake to there. The additions there are obviously being manufactured to "save" this topic as at least a redirect.

Okay, to start about one item, the claim there now that "Lac Jumbo was officially named on 3 October 1972." I believe that is possibly false, or at least that it is giving outrageous salience to a non-notable bureaucratic action, and is trivial beyond a degree acceptable to mentioned in an encyclopedia. Yes, The Commission de Toponymie source about Lac Jumbo does include "Date d'officialisation: 1972-10-03". But I do not believe at all that the lake was named in 1972. I think that was when the Toponymie commission added an entry into their database. This is similar to how WikiProject SHIPS editors believed for a long time that a date entered into the
"Sixteen Island Lake" in Quebec several times, many years before the "officialisation" date in 1996 reported in Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles (maybe that is just for the post office?). There is no way in hell that this lake was not officially recognized in many ways, previously, before then, and before the 1968 date given in this other Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles. For any Quebec lake which is obviously legitimate to be covered in Wikipedia, I doubt that any one of their articles mentions their corresponding "toponymie" database entry date. For 16 Island Lake, the article mentions instead that its name was in use by 1898 for the post office. User:Aymatth2, would you please concede this point and delete that out of what you've added there? --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aymatth2, would you please respond to direct question above? I see that they have stripped down the article during this AFD, perhaps towards redirecting it. I guess that suggests they are not supporting "Keep". Not that they agreed before this AFD to redirect at the Talk page, which they imply they had, above. Anyhow the community can/should judge on whether a redirect is appropriate or not. In some previous interactions, Aymatth2 did a lot of rearranging of articles they had created and were at AFD, undermining community discussion. IMHO this community discussion should be continued, and the proposal is for the item to be deleted (probably along with removal of coverage that has been shifted to the MacDonald River article), not redirected. --Doncram (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the article back as it was when nominated, and would be o.k. with keeping it, but still think a redirect is more suitable. There is not yet much information available online, but an entry in the MacDonald River (Quebec) article seems warranted. The assertion above that the Commission de toponymie du Québec does not know when they made this rather odd name official is daft. Government websites may have mistakes, but we generally treat them as reliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to the direct question. But name-calling: "daft"??? I would believe the government source as reliably enough recording when it made the entry, which is what "date d'officialization" or whatever almost certainly means. I do not believe your assertion in the article that this date was the first "official" naming of this lake. Do you assert that for Sixteen Islands Lake, where there was a Canadian post office named "Sixteen Islands Lake" in 1899, that the lake was not named until the 1960s? That it was not recorded in any official list, did not appear on any official map? I think it is obvious enough that the source is not valid for the purpose used here. ~~There is a venue for discussing what are reliable sources in Wikipedia (~~
wp:RSN i think). Do you seriously want to go there to discuss whether this source is valid in saying what you want it to say? It seems to me that would be wasting time of a number of editors unnecessarily, but I suppose if you cannot see this (or cannot agree to see this), then maybe that is necessary or useful somehow. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Given the strength of Aymatth2's statement, and maybe some antagonism here, I suppose it is useful to get more editors to give them feedback on this point. Please see/participate in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Commission de Toponymie for statement about earliest official naming. --Doncram (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really care if it stays as a redirect or not, but it's blatantly obvious that this fails
WP:REFBOMB, exaggerating content and references on tangential information that do not actually support the notability of the subject – or even provide any information about it, unlike the countless Billy Hathorn biographies. Reywas92^Talk 07:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No known information other than statistics and co-ordinates. A redirect from this title is not appropriate because Jumbo Lake in Saskatchewan province appears notable and doesn't have an article.----Pontificalibus 07:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is another Jumbo Lake redlinked in
List of lakes in Lincoln County, Montana, so perhaps this one should be converted into a Set index article, giving coordinates etc of all three Jumbos. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. If compared to innumerable 1-line stubs about other lakes, it is obvious that this article is developed far enough along beyond mere statistics. I really don't understand why this one is nominated... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you actually examine the article and investigate the sources, you'd see that virtually all of the material in the article (except the location and elevation statistics) is as actually not about the lake itself and that the sources do not actually refer to the lake itself. The content that discusses the lake is the same amount as in the 1-line stubs, the rest is ref bomb fluff! Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are other bad articles does not justify this bad article.Rockphed (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I knew it! Just a matter of time before someone throws the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me without really understanding the principle of it... That page also says: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." And that is the point: a comparison shows that this is not a bad article.

Regarding the comment by User:Reywas92, that has more validity. Certainly the info about the Ronald and MacDonald Rivers is totally irrelevant. But info about the surrounding or adjacent area is pretty standard for all lake articles − obviously no lake article is limited to discussing only the water portion. I'm normally a deletionist, but I still think this one is acceptable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were a staff review of this lake on a travel site, I would consider keeping it. Or a fishing site. Or if some poor schlub had been murdered and interred in the lake for 50 years. But there is no information about this lake to base an article on. We might as well try to transcribe the entire 1900 US census since we would have as much information about people described therein as we do about this lake. We would probably have more. Rockphed (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:GNG does not apply here. An encyclopedia article about a lake should treat it primarily as a geographical entity. Information about the environment is relevant and useful to our readers. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP:MILL - we need something to show that the lake is unique to distinguish it from 500,000 other lakes - Epinoia (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feron

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

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no real world notability. I guess you could redirect it, but not sure what the target would be.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: F or Excalibur (comics) since he was a member of that team. BOZ (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Excalibur (comics). Based on the sources, this appears to be the only comic series where the character was important. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Féron. The real place is more inherently notable than the fictional character. A Hatnote can be added there to a target like Excalibur (comics for people actually looking for the character. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: F - Feron is listed there, but only with a redirect to this article, so the info in this article could be used to expand the list, so a merge is preferred to a simple redirect - not notable enough for a stand alone article - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:27, 14 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. czar 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Malinin

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

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

Fails
WP:NSKATE. Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point in his career, he clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria at
WP:BIO. Hergilei (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete: It is a case of
WP:TOOSOON. Meeanaya (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG or the notability criteria for figure skaters. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 13 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. czar 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Mars (concert residency)

Bruno Mars (concert residency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete this page as this is not a real concert residency) but just some dates that are played on Las Vegas. The lack of sources on the lead contribute for such. Moreover, the dates presented were included in the 24k magic tour presented on his official website. No clue why this page was created in the first place. It comes off a little ridiculous a concert residency starting in 2016 until 2019 with different venues and a tour and new album in the middle, being the latest dates his second concert residency. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article looks like
WP:OR. No sources proving it’s an actual continuous residency. Mymis (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now. I can't find any reliable source that refers to Bruno Mars as having a Vegas residency. If one develops, this can be brought back. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The One. czar 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters named "The One"

List of fictional characters named "The One" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, indiscriminate, fails
WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with appropriate reformating of linkable entries to The One (disambiguation page). This is a non-defining classification (compared to , say, something like fictional presidents), but it is reasonable that a person may search on a term "the one" expecting to find a character named that. That would be best served on the Disambiguation page which presently lacks a section for that. --Masem (t) 18:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And just reading through these, I see maybe only 3 or 4 that really are appropriate (like Neo from the Matrix) to include on The One. There are separate disambiguation pages for The Chosen One (disambiguation) and The Great One (disambiguation) for other versions.--Masem (t) 18:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a select few per MASEM. There should only be the one listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was created to untangle a mess of entries from The One (disambiguation). My commit summary while creating this article is "This page likely needs to be renamed (or even deleted)". My only preference is to not re-clutter The One as it was before. +mt 23:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those entries you split off to here are still weak. For example, there's a separate page for "The Chosen One" disambiguation so those shouldn't have been listed. Entries like the Babylon 5 *really* stretch it, the type of thing that only big fans would likely known. Basically, most of those ones you removed should not be added back, and thus keep the disambiguation clean. --Masem (t) 17:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and return any blue-linked entries to The One, this should have been deleted and not split off into a listcruft article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively per Masem, good call. "The Chosen One" is not the same phrase as "The One," confusing to combine. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Masem. Also, the list of fictional characters in The Chosen One (disambiguation) should probably be trimmed. I see at least 4 entries that are never (to my knowledge) refered to as "the chosen one" in their properties. I don't actually know that they aren't so I haven't removed them. Rockphed (talk) 12:53, 12 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) 18:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of missing people from Nepal

List of missing people from Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Majority of the entries non notable, these articles not separated by country - notable entries already on an array of List of missing people articles - does not merit own article Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate list article. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with DGG. Wikipedia isn't a bulletin of current missing persons, especially non notables. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails
WP:LISTPEOPLE because there are too many candidates for this list who are either not grouped together in any reliable source or simply not notable; it is impossible to compile a consistent, well-sourced, exhaustive standalone list. ComplexRational (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gurvey

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Scott Gurvey

Articles for deletion/Scott Gurvey (2nd nomination)

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

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

failure to meet
WP:BIO, the previous nom was speedily closed as it was appeared to be only focused on lack of references, while this is about notability. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – The Globe and Mail article seems to me to be a full-fledged notability reference, but in doing a
BEFORE search I do not find anything else to go with it. There are lots of Gurvey hits, since he is a long-established journalist, so it feels like he should be notable, but I'm not seeing anything else with the required sort of coverage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The article in Globe and Mail is significant coverage of the subject, but that appears to be the only such source that I can find on him. Otherwise, there are only tangential hits that briefly mention him without any real significant coverage. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It is just not enough at the moment, needs more
WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bell (Australian entrepreneur)

Nick Bell (Australian entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested
self promotion. Content of article is largely trivial and not NPOV. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition note the page was created by
WP:SPA whose only edits are the creation of this page. Cabrils (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Nominator also seems to be more like
WP:SPA, coming to wiki once in a year. He is very clearly a newbie. Meeanaya (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I would ask that you strike through that
WP:DBN I've been contributing on and off for fifteen years. You created your account a few weeks ago. Simon Wright (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
For both of you, please make sure to refrain from commenting on editor conduct and focus on the validity of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft~~. Weak keep or move to draft. More sources (probably better sources) can be found, but a slog to search because the name is common. On first glance, some sources already there are actually passable, but not being used properly. Can be addressed in draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of citations are
Plenty of people drop out of university, start businesses in a booming sector and sell them for a profit. Simon Wright (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Bulk of, perhaps, not all of. Too many possible sources to check in the time this process takes. Move to draft gives time to check those sources and make sure, while taking article out of mainspace, effectively invisible to searchers/readers. If nothing more is found, it will disappear from draft space too. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Out of the first four references, three of them are in national newspapers written by staff writers with editorial oversight. I guess move to draft would be fine as the page could use some cleanup, but AfD isn't a method for cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here to comments left on my talk page as this is the appropriate forum for the discussion, not there. Also adding my two cents to other comments here. Nominators comments of, "there is no dispute that the sources are valid, the question is whether they accumulate into notability, per WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE," are conflicting with the same editor's comments of the references being, "predominantly uncritical media sourced from direct interviews or press releases; distinct lack of in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources." NBUSINESSPEOPLE is not a guideline but a guide that shows prior outcomes from deletion discussions. ANYBIO is a guideline but so is
WP:GNG which is met if "there is no dispute that the sources are valid." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep and close: The page has sufficient
WP:AFC and there is no need to move again to draft and again ask another reviewer to view it. The page can be edited to live and there isn't much content to go through AFC again. Nominator's contributions also seems to be with a purpose and he has very clearly overlooked the sources. Meeanaya (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I have trimmed down the promotional content, I don't think that there is more advert. Meeanaya (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -
WP:MILL per guidelines. For contrast see this AFD for an example of valid notability. Simon Wright (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG is met. Please go through the policy detail and let us know if you are not clear, we might help you out. Meeanaya (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed my vote a bit. Might seem silly, but I decided to look at whether anything new has come about just since the start of this discussion. There is this. Somewhat trivial subject matter, but what non-notable person sees their house profiled in their country's most circulated national paper? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A curious observation; as a regular Aus reader I'd say a majority of people with houses profiled in the magazine aren't even remotely notable. All it means is you have a nice house and are not worried about your privacy. As for the remaining citations, nearly all are interviews and it's worth noting the relevant guidelines state that ...anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability. But it's a nice house so whatever goes. Simon Wright (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still fine with moving to draft for further development. Just that the fact he's in the news just this week lends the sense that he's continually newsworthy. So, weak keep or move to draft. A waste to delete, tho, if continued news is likely to come. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It looks like there are editors working on improving the article, and finding ways to do it. If improvement doesn't continue, it can always be revisited in a couple months. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:ROUTINE business news about his companies. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
yes, but how do you separate personality-driven companies from the person? Article which influenced me was about his house, not companies. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case your vote is null and void since your discussing a house, while we're discussing a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) you misunderstand entirely. Read the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in national media over several years. Meets
WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:16, 13 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) 18:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kartica

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

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

Unclear whether this meets
WP:RS threshold. Much of the article reads like promotional nonsense. The Anome (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete From this sort of time period I'd expect a decent web footprint, if notable. I'd also expect them to either still be around, or to have left a footprint which said "the much-missed Kartica never happened before the grim falling out / band plane crash / existential angst / 27th birthday". A vacuum as we seem to have instead suggests a brief band which never made it, and that's not notable for our purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of this article seems jokey and parodic, which would have to be removed even if they were notable - but there is no evidence that they are. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close: Fails
WP:MUSIC. Meeanaya (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Estrella Mauritius

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

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

The article did not meet
WP:GNG, no extensive coverage from multiple reliable sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference, and I think notability is now demonstrated. Most national beauty contests that send their winners to compete at Miss Universe are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable beauty pageant - of the three references in the article, one is about the scholarship prize, one is a profile of a winner, and the third is about the contestants - the pageant itself is not the subject of any of the references and I could find no source that dealt with the pageant - does not meet
WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" - Epinoia (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Sharma Telefilms Limited

Rashmi Sharma Telefilms Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources focusing on the company and nothing really good found on a search. Lots of casual mentions in articles focusing on films, but notability doesn't transfer.
Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - There needs to be sources that meet
WP:ORGCRIT and the draft (as well as Google) are void of such. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Wikipedia should not be IMDb, this is a listing of films by a company that fails
WP:NORG. Out of scope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

΄Delete per nomination since subject fails
WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 14 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) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veilchen

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

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

GNG fail; very thin notability. Tagged for notability since 2015. I have also nominated the comic's creator,
talk) 14:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect on the condition that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bissan Rafe closes as keep. Otherwise delete as not notable. @2pou: Your use of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Webcomics is appreciated! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article peaked interest and made me think it could be notable with the multi-cultural references, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate this. Also, project seems abandoned. I can't find a way to access the webcomic from the main domain/site, and even if you follow the direct link, there is only one page available to see. 2pou (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if Rafe's article survives. Delete otherwise. Definitely not more notable than the artist herself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bissan Rafe

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

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

The only SIGCOV article I can find is this one. There are a couple smaller items mentioned in the article under references, but overall I think this is
talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I managed to scrape together an article that should demonstrate
WP:GNG. It'd be easier to get sources on the subject if she didn't have like five different names she's used at various times. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I merged two of the sources in the version you mention as meeting GNG. There were three sources written by Frederico Cao; of these two had identical content but slightly different titles. Merged. It's worth noting Frederico Cao's two articles, which are largely similar, are the only instances of real SIGCOV.
talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even the author doesn't care to keep it. See [5] Vexations (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Vexations. The input in AfD discussions of the subject of the article (be it an organisation, or a person) or its creator does not enjoy any kind of privilege over other editors'. The AfD is decided on the merit of policy-based arguments. (There are cases of potentially harmful BLPs, of course.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:G5 speedy delete. Hopefully MJL didnt spend too much on the improvements after bringing this to attention... sorry... -2pou (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Correction. NOT G5 eligible since author ban came after creation, but still voting this way per author not caring. -2pou (talk) 04:30, 13 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 and retitle. czar 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Secret Surprise

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

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

Notability. I see tha Operation Desert Storm does not merit a standalone article, so I cannot see why a single operation should. Normally I would simply redirect such an article, but in this case not only am I not sure of the best target, but also cannot find any mention of this B-52 strike. TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Operation Senior Surprise, the correct name.[6][7] Enough has been written about the operation to merit a standalone article. Second choice: merge to Gulf War air campaign. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Operation Desert Storm doesn't need a standalone article, as it is pretty much synonymous with the Gulf War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Operation Senior Surprise as a notable operation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 11 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) 18:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Seymour

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

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

Fails notability guidelines, minor actor without major roles or coverage. I found nothing on him following a google search Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No citations other than imdb and a weboriginal series webpage. Definitely not notable, only had a couple of minor appearances in a couple of TV shows. Almost no other mention of him on the Internet. PraiseVivec (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass
WP:NACTOR with a lack of prominent roles in notable productions Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Undoubtedly fails the
WP:NACTOR. Lack significant roles. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Some minor appearances does not make him notable , fails
WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are not sources about subject to establish notability. Abtehas98 (talk) 20:29, 12 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. Although the biography should probably be expanded to cover her as well as her books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Broadbent

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

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

This author has not received sufficient coverage or been credited with sufficient influence to satisfy
Noahe123 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found several reviews of her work and added them to the article. However, there's also more information in a journal, Magpies, that I don't have access to. These are the years, volumes and issues that she's written up in Magpies 1) July 2015, Vol 30, Issue 3, 2) March 2011, Vol 26, Issue 1, 3) May 2010, Vol 25, Issue 2. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources to warrant notability. I'm quite put off by the fact that currently, 4 out of the 7 citations are not publicly available, which goes to show how difficult it is to find any sort of source dealing with her work. And the sources that are public seem to confirm that her notability is largely confined to the Christchurch children's literature scene. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But I've shown that even if we can't access them, they exist. In addition, the journal, New Zealand Books is not local and reviews books from New Zealand and other parts of the world. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets
WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, Magpies July 2015 article added to article under "Further reading" (oh no! another subscription required source), and, since Broadbent is notable, have added the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge.:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per wisdom of Megalibrarygirl and RebeccaGreen. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs bio info about her, not just details of her books. Moriori (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2014 GoPro Indy Grand Prix of Sonoma

2014 GoPro Indy Grand Prix of Sonoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability? All I get when I search for this on Google is some YouTube videos of it, a single press release from GoPro announcing that they sponsored it, and the already cited USA Today article. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is certainly a very low quality stub, but it's a stub that covers a championship round of
Indy 500). Unfortunately the guidelines do not appear to specify whether or not individual IndyCar and or F1 races of the professional era are inherently notable (I would assert that they are), but a strong indicator is that any driver who had taken part in this race would themselves be considered notable merely because of the entry in this race (Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Motorsports
).

Online sources for indycar 2014 sonoma include: [8] (
Motor Sport Magazine). Other likely source but I can't confirm: Autosport magazine out of the UK covers every IndyCar race so would likely include a race report in that week's print edition. As an American series, I would expect more extensive coverage in US print media too. --kingboyk (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: It might be helpful if Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing were informed about the discussion. Having advocated for keeping this article, I will not notify them myself because it may appear like canvassing. Would the proposer or an unconnected editor please notify that project? --kingboyk (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant WikiProject has been notified. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs expansion of the article, not to delete the article. But if we are going to do it, at least maybe redirect it to the 2014 IndyCar Series. HawkAussie (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources seem to exist beyond the single source referenced. Rockphed (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources may exist via the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine. The race is five years old and IndyCar often revamps their website in the offseason, leading to dead links. Like others have said, the race is notable, the article just needs expansion. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kingboyk MWright96 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - routine coverage for such an event
WP:LASTING - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Sustained coverage is not a requirement for an article's existence; if it were, the Madden NFL series would have an article deleted every year to make way for the new game. This was a race in the 2014 IndyCar Series season, the highest level of single-seater racing in North America. Every single race from 2007-2018 has an article, and the only reason the same can't be said for 2019 at the moment is because the project is currently undermanned. In short, IndyCar race reports have established notability in the past. If we're calling notability into question here, then a mass deletion of about 175 other articles is in order, which would be ridiculous and absurd. Low quality stubs, which with the right amount of work can eventually become good and featured articles, are better than nothing. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the sources Kingboyk used show coverage of an event for a top tier motorcar league thus demonstrating notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Straße

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

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

This disambiguation page consists of
WP:partial title matches, with the sole exception of the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They took a random, common German word and thought “how can I make a page out of it?” Trillfendi (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really stretching the purpose of a disambiguation page. Per guidelines, "A disambiguation page is not a search index". Edgeweyes (talk) 13:05, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nnadigoodluck (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destinee Arnold

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

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

The references cited are not genuine. Instagram and Facebook are social media and not reliable sources. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That's really normal. It takes time for reliable sources to come out from the web. Again, this matter happened a lot of times. Like Dayana Davtyan. There were no sources from web and used social medias but until then, sources from web started coming out and used that sources to the article. Let's wait. Triila73 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Nnadigoodluck (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per
(non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Oscar Keith

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

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

Subject is a soccer player. Fails to demonstrate of meeting notability requirement of
talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete probably should have been PRODded, this probably falls under some speedy criteria as well. SportingFlyer T·C 06:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - falls under
G11. Bookscale (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. Blatantly blatant hoax with no credible claim of significance. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Sibanda

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

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

Subject is a soccer player. Fails to demonstrate of meeting notability requirement of
talk) 05:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A youth for Liverpool wouldn't pass
WP:GNG. Unfortunately, he plays for the under 20 team of a Scottish fifth division side, and, as the article clearly states, he has also made no international appearances yet. Good luck to him though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This is a clear case of failing
WP:NFOOTBALL here with a search on Google seeing no resources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Association for Theological Education in South East Asia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Journal of Theology

Asia Journal of Theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This is a non-notable journal that fails
WP:NJOURNALS. I originally redirected the article back to the organization that publishes it, Association for Theological Education in South East Asia, in June because it was unsourced for eight years. The redirect was reverted with a presumably one sentence entry in a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Aspects (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to
b} 15:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge back to Association for Theological Education in South East Asia. The indexing, while not sufficient for notability, gives some basic verifiability. Merge is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruta Bloomfield

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

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

Non-notable musician and educator. Tagged since 2012 for notability and citations. PROD declined as worthy of discussion. Claim to fame seems to be a performance of Premiere Livre de Pièces de Clavecin, which was the subject of her doctoral thesis. – Fayenatic London 04:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musicial academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:BLP1E, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete - teacher at a college in danger of losing accreditation; fails
WP:PROF. Her only claim to fame was a single performance of an obscure set of musical pieces. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naa Ille Naa Swargam

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

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

Non-notable film with no sources as of now. An internet search reveals nothing more than music playlists, databases, movie players, etc. I do not see any significant coverage in reliable sources. William2001^(talk) 04:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like it's "నా ఇళ్ళే నా స్వర్గం" in Telugu but there's nothing under that either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:NFILM - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 16:52, 14 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. Given that
requests from the subject to delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Marco Garibaldi

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

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

The living person described in this article requests deletion; see
WP:BIODELETE. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual. May merit passing mention in article on Prisilla Presley.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
their notability is second-hand. Closing admin should consider a redirect before deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone needs the content for a merger they can ask on
WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Chernarus

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

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

There is no indication that this fictional location is independently notable and requires a standalone article outside the series page. It seems like pure fancruft with no real-world commentary or reception whatsoever. The references are either
WP:PRIMARY or only tangentially related. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Lacks independent notability. Sources just mention it briefly in the context of its respective video game. Unnecessary spinout, should just be covered briefly in its parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete for lack of citation indicating the location is notable independent of the game. The footnotes provided are to general article about the game in which this location is mentioned, or to the developers' site. That said, given there has clearly been quite a bit of minor mention of the subject in external sources, if even ONE strong secondary source specifically devoted to this subject could be provided, I'd be willing to revisit this. -Markeer 02:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_7&oldid=1142224983"