Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 16

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

This article is a content fork. There are no other articles by country that are relating to this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to
WP:NOTPAPER) and should be kept somewhere, but the standalone list article is a mess given it's reliant on single sources. The main article on aviation in Australia only contains a history section and nothing else, and would be ideal to have some lists on domestic and international civil air routes currently. The list article can be significantly pruned there to something manageable so I'm not suggesting all of it be recreated in the Aviation in Australia article. Bookscale (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively as suggested. It's a
original research. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (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. Closing based on Bearian's solid research. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your participation! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponge Ezhu Manohara

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

Unsourced, unknown film. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. I found nothing on Google newspapers, nor on Google scholar, nor anything relevant on Google books. This brief entry indicates that its box office was kept secret. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (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.

- talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Carl Busse (architect)

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

Stub with low notability, few references and limited views PenulisHantu (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; we should generally keep subjects that have their own
applied less stringently because of the wide scope of the book. TL;DR: I am willing to assume that two out of three sources contain enough to be construed as GNG-applicable. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I'm not seeing any real grounds for deletion in the nomination. Stubs are valid. Limited views and few references are irrelevant. Notability may be an issue, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2020 (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. Deleting based on the rationale presented by Ferret. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATI video card suffixes

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

Numerous problems with this one,

original research. Since AMD took over ATI some time ago this has been forgotten about and abandoned, with only minor edits in the last 10 years. I feel it no longer serves its purpose even in an historical context, individual product pages seem to do a better job at explaining differences in the product lineup. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mass of OR. This is essentially a list, and fails
WP:NOTCATALOG here too. The suffixes of GPUs, whether ATI, AMD or nVidia, is rarely discussed in this manner if at all. They're inconsistently used between product generations and frequently changed. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Not sure what the creator was even thinking. I would think a list of products would make more sense, but then
WP:NOTCATALOG so it still should go. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per ferret. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:08, 21 January 2020 (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 Streetnix. Saved us some grief and redirected to Streetnix. Happy to assist with undeleting and so forth if the subject breaks out and gains notability. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Speck

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

self-published social media posts of his own friends and colleagues and his own bands' self-published websites about themselves -- and the only reference that's actually to a real newspaper is not an article about him, but a glancing namecheck of his existence in the caption to a photograph on an article that otherwise fails to mention his name at all in the body text, which means it isn't about him for the purposes of contributing any notability points. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to have notability claims that pass NMUSIC, supported by reliable source coverage about them in real media, but this article says absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete I couldn’t find anything the subject that was a worthy source, he is no different from the other 10 members of Streetnix. No independent news sources about the subject makes it impossible to meet notability guidelines. Jaxbrother (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails
WP:NMUSIC on his own. If you feel it's needed, then redirect to Streetnix. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (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 Fox's Biscuits. Redirecting to Fox's Biscuits. If someone wants to merge any of the content in the nominated article, I'm happy to provide you with the text in your userspace to do so. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party ring

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

Potentially fails

WP:GNG

. Can't find third party sources for the candy, beyond primary sources from the manufacturer.

Nominating to the science category since the article mentions that it was the first product to use a chemical dye to get brighter colors.

ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Based on your concerns, does Redirect to Fox's Biscuits sound like a good option? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect or Merge to Fox's Biscuits. The one source cited for this article is limited to a few sentences. Much of the article is unsourced and I could not find sources outside of primary from the manufacturer (Fox's Biscuits) as mentioned by the nominator. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:56, 21 January 2020 (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. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Bluerasberry. They are one of Wikipedia's foremost writers about public health and I concur the work presented in the article shows that this subject passes GNG and is important in its own right. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in British Columbia

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

Article, written at least partially like a health care policy analysis report rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced much more strongly to

WP:MILL topic. The core problem here is that you could essentially write the exact same article, differing only in the statistics and the details of who pays for the service, for every other Canadian province, every other U.S. state, and every other division of any other country where health care is managed by state or provincial governments rather than national ones -- but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why we would need dozens or hundreds of functionally identical articles about "same thing in different place". (Sample text from the article: "The steps for obtaining PrEP in BC are as follows: speaking to a physician, getting some medical tests, enrolling and being given a prescription, and refilling the prescription." But that's exactly the way all health care always works everywhere, and isn't a uniquely noteworthy aspect of this particular topic.)
And in addition to the fact that so many of the sources are from governments and ASOs rather than media outlets, many of them aren't even specifically about British Columbia -- 12 of the 35 footnotes here, a full third of the entire footnote pool, are sitting in the "Coverage in other areas of Canada" section to support what every other province or territory in Canada that isn't British Columbia does, several more are about HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in Germany or the United States without even addressing Canada at all let alone British Columbia specifically, and a lot of what's left after that is just about the general and universal concept of HIV prophylaxis rather than addressing British Columbia's program as a standalone topic. So for all of those reasons, I just don't see a convincing reason why "HIV/AIDS prophylaxis in British Columbia" would need its own standalone article as a separate topic from HIV/AIDS prophylaxis everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

I agree with the nominator - "you could essentially write the exact same article... for every other Canadian province, every other U.S. state, and every other division of any other country". I am in support of purging this article about the routine information which applies everywhere, like "patients who want the drug start by talking with their doctor".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HIV/AIDS in Canada. I don't think there's enough information on BC specifically to meet GNG. b uidhe 20:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HIV/AIDS in Canada per Buidhe and nominator's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own essay at
WP:UNDUE for HIV/AIDS in Canada
and a merge is not a pathway to keeping well-cited content in this article which is specific to BC.

I like these articles because there is a huge amount of investment in public health research by region. Responding to HIV/AIDS in BC requires a huge amount of funding and lots of research is published on this general topic and the individual subject of prep. Medical topics draw a lot of special research publications and we have plenty of articles cited which are Vancouver BC + PreP. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:04, 21 January 2020 (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 Jack Scruby. Closing in alignment with "merge" per presentations below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mafrica

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A fictional place, with no evidence of receiving any attention outside its niche in gaming contexts. (A PROD was removed with the edit-summary "deprod; merge and redirect to Jack Scruby", which was strange, as the editor did not, in fact, take any steps to either merge or redirect.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Scruby. Which was strange, as neither did you! I'll never understand editors who are more interested in deleting than preserving when there is a perfectly good article to merge content to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
WP:ATD, for verifiable material, merging is preferred over deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No indication why this should be merged into Scuby's article (whre it's already mentioned), it would just seem like a
WP:SALESGUIDE entry to me. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Jack Scruby - While there is not much actual content in this article that would really need to be merged, the sources, particularly the "Atlas of Fantasy", would be useful to include on Jack Scruby's page, as the brief coverage of Mafrica there currently has no citations. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. If it had
WP:SIGCOV on its own, then it could be notable, such as Grand Fenwick, but it doesn't. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2020 (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. Deleted. This type of information is available from the federal government and since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I hope people do look elsewhere for a resource like this. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Bulletin Employment-based Preferences Cut-off Dates

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

While Visa Bulletin clearly meets our notability guidelines, there is nothing particularly notable about a page that basically duplicates the contents on the Visa bulletins. There are a number of SPA and SP IP accounts who keep editing this page, mostly with no citations for the changes. Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not encyclopaedic content. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good archive of information on one page. Saves the trouble of searching through multiple past issues of bulletin. Decent usage and readership. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the publication branch of the US government. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need to republish and interpret government publications. Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2020 (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

- talk 14:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

2019 Remixed

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

Doesn/t have sources to make it eligible for Article mainspace Shubhi89 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article has no sources, a quick googling turned up [8] and [9], as well as this brief note [10]. Just because an article lacks sources does not mean sources do not exist. Also, this album was released just four days ago as of this AfD opening. That could mean one of two things. Either, this is
WP:TOOSOON, and should be deleted. Or...it will take a few days for it to be written about, but that enough sources will exist within a few weeks. Then there is no sense in deleting it, just to have it be recreated in a month. I think the pre-release hype speaks to the fact that further coverage is forthcoming. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I would also support moving it to draft. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite there being some reliably sourced coverage this does not meet

WP:GNG. Albums and EPs need to chart and have sufficient coverage beyond their existence and track listing. This doesn't and its unlikely that it would get further coverage now it has been out a few weeks. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 13:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that this topic satisifies NGEO and thus has the presumption of notability owing to non-english language sources. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazhimbram

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

Appears to fail the notability guideline for places; I cannot find a single reliable source meaningfully discussing it. Previously proposed for deletion, but that was contested via redirecting, only for the article to be restored. Glades12 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I can't find anything to verify that this is a (census recognised) village. There appears to be a locality with this name somewhere in/around Thissur (judging from Google Maps ), but if that's it then it's almost certainly not a notable one. I originally proposed this for deletion, but there have been objections (or hints of objections) from Arms & Hearts and Sam-2727. And adding the off-topic observation that the article itself has never been more than seven words long but by this stage several hundred words by at least four editors have been spent debating it. How many wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb? – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally going to oppose this, but this wiki page [11] suggests that maybe Kazhimbram is just a town (perhaps more like a neighborhood in the United States) located within Thrissur. Thus maybe Kazhimbram should be redirected to Thrisur? Or is that sentence on that wiki page suggesting that this is a town in the district of Thrissur, and that link is simply a bad link that should actually go to Thrissur district? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:GEOLAND. This is not strictly a village but the coastal segment (see here) attached to the village of Edamuttam (you can see here how Google has the polygon data for the village and adjacent ones but not the coastal areas attached to them - however Kazhimbram Post Office is visible between Edamuttam and the sea). Although not a "village" originally Kazhimbram is a populated place and regarded as a village in some ways. It is a distinct electoral district with its own representative on Valapad Panchayat (source). There is plenty to say about the place, for example this source notes that it suffered from severe coastal erosion which was considered a serious problem to due it being densely populated. It is the site of one of Kerala's official Fish Landing Centres, and contains the beach of the same name where people collect endangered turtle eggs. Did anyone search Malayalam sources yet? ----Pontificalibus 16:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Great finds! If this is a village ward (as the electoral source indicates) and a coastal segment (as shown by the others), then I think it's existence is certainly verified, but I still don't see the standalone notability per GEOLAND. Redirecting to the the next higher-level unit sounds like the best thing to do. – Uanfala (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Being presumed to be notable does not necessarily mean actually being it. None of the sources you gave here (there may be more, obviously) cover the place in much detail; the Journal of the Institution of Engineers only names it briefly as one affected village, and the one about the beach doesn't even seem to mention Kazhimbram. I am intrigued by this being an electoral district though. Glades12 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree that there aren't enough notable sources here. I guess it is a legally recognized voting district (contrary to what I thought originally), but it still doesn't meet general notability guidelines. I agree that a redirect would do good here. However, I am still hesitant in my vote of delete until sources in different languages have been searched for. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets If this is to be a redirect, what would the target be? As I said in my original delete vote, perhaps a redirect to Thrissur district would be appropriate. However, I am not familiar with organization of government in India. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's convention that verified settlements are kept, this topic doesn't need to meet

WP:GNG. A redirect is not appropriate because there are numerous possible targets none of which are satisfactory. For example in the 2015 election it was in Valapad Grama Panchayat but also Thalikulam Block Panchayat. The closest city is Thrissur but it would ridiculous for that article to contain information on all the surrounding villages, likewise with the Thrissur district article, it can't accommodate information on all the individual settlements. Far better to retain a separate article which can be expanded as and when further sources are found.----Pontificalibus 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

I know it's convention to keep legally recognized villages/towns as articles, but from what you wrote, I got the impression that this wasn't an officially recognized town but rather an electoral district. Since this isn't a legally recognized village, notability standards should be applied to it, as the article is about the village, not the electoral district. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:GEOLAND is pretty clear on this. The town has been subject to censuses of India and thus warrants a standalone article. --RaviC (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- As discussed above, the place appears to be below the level of the smallest entities enumerated in the census. For example, it seems to be absent from the 2011 district handbook for Thrissur. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're just repeating Pontificalibus' argument, which has been refuted. Glades12 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ perhaps to Thrissur district or Valapad. Geoland does not mandate that any place with a name must have an article. Being a ward in a village council suggests it may be a neighborhood or sub-village, but not a "legally recognized" village (as one enumerated in a census may be) per geoland. Other wards are "VALAPAD HIGHSCHOOL" and "PANCHAYATH OFFICE" so I do not take being a minor local electoral boundary as evidence of notability. Being the name of a beach that has been eroded is irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government sources all state that VPM SNDP Higher Secondary School is in Kazhimbram as a top order settlement. Redirecting to Thrissur district would be as absurd as redirecting Airmont, New York to New York (state). Redirecting to any other village or panchayat article is problematic for the reasons I set out above: Kazhimbram has been and is in a variety of administrative areas for different purposes.----Pontificalibus 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well more like to Rockland County, New York but no that would not be the best target. Perhaps to Valapad is more like to Ramapo, New York as a village within a town but obviously it's not the same system. This source and the census is more compelling than the others though so I change my vote to keep. Reywas92^Talk 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned in the 1981 Indian census. Passes
WP:GNG because of the presumption they've been covered somewhere. In this case there appear to be at least a few other English-language sources available, and no local language search appears to have been performed. [12] and [13] SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you provide a source for the Indian census reference? As mentioned before, it's probably not a legally recognized village. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided two above, and added it into the article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND, per SportingFlyer. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2020 (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. Deleting per

WP:GNG guidelines. Good efforts on all parts. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

977 Music

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

Article about an internet streaming audio provider, not properly referenced as the subject of any significant

WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it has to be the subject of non-trivial coverage in media to support an article with. But there are just three footnotes here, of which one is the site's Alexa profile (which is a directory entry) and one is its own self-published press release about itself on a press release platform (which is not independent of the subject) -- which means two of the three sources here are not support for notability at all. And while the one remaining source is media, it's a limited-circulation trade magazine, which means it isn't enough media coverage to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only real media source in play. Even just a basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to have much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low notability. More like a promotional page with few references and independent information. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it has low notability. Back when I wrote it, I thought it was borderline notable, but time has shown that I was mistaken. → Call me Razr Nation 01:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies if the subject hits the big time. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Eliza Wren

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines at

WP:MUSICBIO. Google news search not showing any required coverage and no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ifnord (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be some minor local coverage, but
WP:MUSICBIO does not appeared to be satisfied, and there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources on which to base an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 17 January 2020 (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. Deleting based on the many subject matter experts thoughts below. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent Lord

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

This title is a name from a video game taken to refer to the leader of Harad in the Tolkien universe. There's no real coverage of this figure in reliable sources. The article consists of some direct quotes referring to the unnamed figure in LOTR, then a reference to the video game, with some possible OR sprinkled in (unsourced statements about how some fans don't consider something to be "canonical" is usually OR). I see no pass of GNG here, and I think a redirect would be detrimental because "Serpent Lord" could refer to several things. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Serpent Lord" is a non-notable character who was not even named in the original work. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an "important" character. Tolkien tells us so little of him, an unnamed chieftain, that we have no idea how much of Haradim he really controlled. I also have to point out that the plot summary is written in the wrong tense. Plot summaries should be written in present not past tense. I would fix this one, but with so much original research and use of priary sources this article is doomed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:29, 23 January 2020 (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

merge. Please consider moving content from the article in question and redirecting. I'm happy to assist with redirecting if needed. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Middle-earth calendar

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

More Tolkiencruft unnoticed by any but the most Faithful, so no

WP:GNG. And where did somebody dig up the fact(?) that the Shire year is exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this subject. Also, I suspect that this article is full of original research and fanon. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete: No sources, seems to be original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material is better suited for a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not elaborated on in the actual text of the books. I really do not think it needs to be mentioned anywhere. It adds lots more complexity, and the fact that Tolkien did not elaborate on it in his books shows he figures it is not central to understanding his stories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect The level of detail given in the article body owes more to fandom than Fingolfin. However, there is a reliable source available, as Drout gives a chapter (5 articles and an introduction) to the subject of Tolkien's Calendars. Smith, Arden R. (2013) [2007]. "Calendars". In
Arda (Tolkien)#History. I think this sufficient to propose that we redirect there; the summary in the article's lead is actually also quite suitable for a merge, given the Drout source, and we can dump the article body where it belongs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and Redirect per Chiswick Chap, keeping the content forming the lead of this article. On the Drout encyclopedia, while I don't always agree with the way Piotrus has characterised some of the encyclopedia entries in other AfD discussions, but you can't really call the entries in the Drout encyclopedia a 'chapter'. It is actually 2 pages, which some people may be able to preview here on Google Books. That covers the 'Four Ages', 'The Elvish Calendar', 'Calendars of the Dunedain', 'Shire Reckoning' and 'Durin's Day'. That should be the limit of our coverage too. The material on the 'Four Ages' we seem to have at History of Arda. one of the problems with the coverage in secondary literature of such topics is that it can be rather sporadic and not really unified as a whole (though increasingly thematic surveys are emerging, see e.g. for the topic of music Music in Tolkien's Work and Beyond and Music in Middle-earth). It is well worth perusing the list of publications from Walking Tree Publishers to see if a topic is covered there, as that is a good starting point for more in-depth analysis than would be found in Drout's encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I also did my due diligence and I was unable to find any coverage to establish inclusion. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatsa Vii

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

Spammy autobio/vanity spam with fabricated claims of notability and no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is more like a promotional blurb than anything, and sourcing to establish claim of notability is wafer thin.TH1980 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austrian inventions and discoveries

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a test case. There are plenty more nationalities where this slunk from. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am apathetic right now. I will circle back after a few others give opinions. Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathically weak keep Whilst I normally would suggest an even remotely
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list should get in the bin, I think this risks having some encyclopaedic merit. I think I'd be veering keep if the list criteria were "inventions or discoveries that are notably Austrian", versus just "this has a vague wiff of the Alps about it". I don't know what criteria should be used to define a notably Austrian invention - something that includes Kaiserschmarrn, but excludes Psychoanalysis would fit the bill. I see this article has A sister, too. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Very Weak Keep Seems to have some educational merit in research for Austria. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dellwood546, can you clarify? Austria is not Australia. Perhaps a typo? IceFishing (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Dellwood546, replying that "Australian" for "Austrian" was a typo, as you did here, was a good idea. Removing your reply and silently correcting the typo, as you did a minute later, was not so good. Please don't alter your comments after they have been replied to, because it wrongfoots the other person. See how strange IceFishing's question looks now? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IceFishing Oh sorry, I was unaware of what to do, thanks for the heads up on what to do. Dellwood546 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries : includes lots of List of Japanese inventions and discoveries, List of Korean inventions and discoveries, even a List of Byzantine inventions. In case anyone else is wondering about this as a type.IceFishing (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with hosting lists of inventions made in specific countries. IceFishing (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that there don't appear to be lists by country "in the wild"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely certain that I understand your question, are you requesting article like "So, what have the Scots ever done for us? Just 101 of the innovations Caledonia gave the world" [14] The Independent? IceFishing (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is merely a list, which is harmless. It is tagged for a lack of references, but I regard that as misplaced criticism: what would need references is the articles linked to. Such lists are rather like categories, which cannot have references. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply here. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (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 Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entish

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

Entish is a non-notable fictional language. Furthermore, this article treats the language's fictional history as if it was real. I think it is time to dispose of this piece of rubbish. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to
WP:SPLIT from the main article on the fictional species. Most sources, in fact, are referring to a programming language that, while possibly named for the fictional language, does not actually confer any notability to it. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent. The entire "New Entish" section reeks of possible OR, and there's not much of anything related to this language. Tolkien fleshed out a lot of his fictional languages, but this one never got much detail. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect. The langauge is not elaborated on in reliable sources. It is not a needful search term, and having it as a redirect will just encourage more cluttering of articles with unneeded links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. This is Tolkien, his works have spawned a corpus of commentaries and analyses that's several orders of magnitude bigger than the sum total of everything he wrote. So even if there are only scrattered mentions of the language in Tolkien's own works, there's enough in the secondary literature for an encyclopedia entry. For example, there's a page about it in Jim Allan's 1978 An Introduction to Elvish (pp. 176–177), scattered paragraphs here and there (these are the first two that came up on google books: [15], [16]). Given the unusual nature of the language – it has no nouns to speak of, with each "name" used telling the whole story of the thing it refers to – it's not surprising that it will have inspired a programming language, and so in the literature on that there are occasional paragraphs (like here) about the original Entish. Whether there's enough coverage for a standalone article, I wouldn't care to decide, but a section in Ent will not be out of place. If the article is kept, then it goes without saying it will need to be seriously trimmed down. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ent. I would hesitate to call it a "language constructed by Tolkien" because I know of no evidence that he constructed more than a couple of phrases ad hoc. For the languages that seriously interested him, he wrote grammars. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Is there some kind of anti-Tolkien campaign happening? This is the second such article I've encountered recently. Clearly there is quality content here that shouldn't be deleted haphazardly. Perhaps a merge to Ent would be adequate as suggested above. As for keeping the article itself, I generally agree with Uanfala above, albeit adding that perhaps there isn't enough independent content to support a stand-alone article. The machine is taking over, sadly. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question in your first sentence, I've seen a large number of PRODs and RfDs to do with Tolkien the last month or so. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you will, it is more like an anti-fiction campaign that covers more than just Tolkien. Some editors seem to agree that "Wikipedia has an amazingly out of control coverage of fictional places, people and events." [17] De728631 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article on Barahir had had 0 sources, and yet had existed 16 years. Many other articles have been tagged for violation of policy for 8 years or more. It is high time this randon Tolkiencruft was brought under control. We created notability guidelines in 2006, but Tolkien articles have not yet been brought under them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ent. This isn't much of language as compared to Tolkien's Elvish, so a standalone article is not merited. De728631 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze

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

Sources are not good enough to meet the gng and porn awards no longer provide notability.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

(another often cited cultural icon), has been assessed as having wide cultural significance and we have major media sources as well as books and academic papers establishing this. If we cannot find many other persons or works related to the porn industry as having "cultural relevance" that is not some evidence of "anti-porn bias", but simply what sources contain.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deprecated WP:PORNBIO guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Congratulations for nominating a GA-class article for deletion.[18] Is this a first? Haze passes
WP:ENTERTAINER. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Are you serious considering this article for deletion? The subject person's really relevant for the twentieth century culture.u v u l u m (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: She has had minor non-porn roles and her success in porn and notability is quite routine and unencyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

User blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラ P 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails both
WP:NACTOR, with almost all sources being porn mags. Inclusion in a list alongside many others and a single sentence does not qualify as a "significant cult following". The sources provided above are not reliable, with the exception of one, which is not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since subject fails
Britannica, any Art in America back issues lying around, or the Philosophy Today archives. -The Gnome (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As none of those publications are known for any coverage of porn-related topics at even the broadest cultural level (e.g. more than acknowledging it exists), that's hardly relevant. This argument is like claiming a a basketball player is non-notable because no specialist soccer, hockey or American football publications have covered him in depth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made,

Wikipedia-acceptable sources (not necessarily the ones I proffered, in way of example) as, indeedd, "culturally relevant," be they sculptors, painters, writers, actors, athletes, etc. Among porn performers, at least one porn film, the one starring Linda Lovelace

In sum, we have no sources whatsoever

supporting the claim made about the cultural significance of this AfD's subject. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

She doesn't have to be considered "really relevant to the twentieth century culture" to have a Wikipedia article. She has to pass

WP:GNG. These attempts to set up bars that have no basis in any Wikipedia notability guideline or policy whatsoever for the sake of finding something you can declare she doesn't pass are unique, to say the last. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

You continue to comment in haste,

supporting

that quite significant claim. Is it clear now?

This is a rather legthy AfD and people can be excused if they do not read through the whole thing. But they should do so if they intend to comment in it. Saves time. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an absurd argument suggesting that the lack of mention in Encyclopedia Britannica, an art publication (!) or Philosophy Today had any bearing whatsoever on assessing her cultural significance. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave examples of publications (and there are myriads of them) that we can use to show a person has "cultural significance". Jenna Haze does not have any such significance whatsoever. Uvulum claimed she has, but the claim is without any

It's truly high time. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

I didn't misunderstand anything: you, in your own words, right there, suggested that an absence of material in those sources was in any way relevant to a consideration of the cultural significance of the subject, knowing full well that neither of them deal with more than perhaps the broad existence of her line of work. People can always disagree about sourcing, but these ridiculous attempts to avoid having to have that discussion by trying to establish impossible bars or make up imaginary guidelines in the hope no one notices are going to get a predictably derisory response. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is listed as a good article. I believe the best procedure would be first discuss your good article condition and then a AfD. For respect to the process of defining good articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. An article appearing on Wikipedia has to
notability. And after it appears, the article may rise to become a great one, as far as presentation, sourcing, photos, language, etc, are concerned. But when the criteria for inclusion change, then we do not assess inclusion by "how well the article is written" but by whether or not its subject meeets the new criteria. WP:PORNBIO is out, folks! Articles, from stubs to GAs, that only meet WP:PORNBIO (a dead & buried criterion) are to be defenestratated. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Lots of references on this article. No, porn actors don't end up in Philosophy Today, but pornography is an interesting subject, and I think you should judge the notability on equivalent people. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography is no longer a subject assessed by the criteria you personally set with your comments, . A porn related subject may well be notable in daily/everyday life but Wikinotabiolity is something different. Does our subject meet
WP:NACTOR? This is a question we would not, of course, ask in real lie, but we do ask it here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

He didn't refer to
WP:NACTOR doesn't provide us helpful guidance here; rather, like for millions of other articles with no subject-specific criteria, we assess notability through the sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

We have to show that our subject person meets the notability criteria of
WP:GNG is essentially proceeding as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. And I'm saying, let it rest in peace. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

No, if we only use porn-related sources for someone who is primarily notable for being involved in porn, we'd be doing what happens in every other area, specific criteria or not, and using the most obviously relevant sources for the subject. Any article on any subject that doesn't have a subject-specific guideline and has to be assessed via
WP:GNG is probably going to heavily feature sources generally focused on that subject. Porn is not different because you'd like it to be. As Wikipedia:Notability says, "Subject-specific notability guidelines... may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas": if you deprecate the subject-specific information on how to make those decisions, it just means that one goes back to general guidelines. What you clearly want is a guideline that specifically excludes consideration of the factors that used to constitute WP:PORNBIO in making decisions about notability, but that's not in any sense what that RfC asked, was argued, or was closed as. If you want that, then I'm afraid you'd better get writing and get a new RfC underway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

You may carry on in your mistaken understandiing that porn-related persons possess inherent notability by being, for example, prominent porn actors. And that using porn-related sources is all it takes to keep them up. That is your prerogative. What you cannot do is make personal judgements about your fellow editors, as you have done throughout the discussion (e.g. "porn is not different because you'd like it to be"). You are kindly requested to adhere to
boorishness is a no no. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

You still seem to be confused about the difference between inherent notability and notability: she can't be inherently notable as there's now no subject-specific guideline, but her prominence certainly is a factor in considering general notability, as it is for anyone else. (The reason many of these AfDs are succeeding with minimal if any opposition is because
WP:GNG. You can't do that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - Notability has already been established by the GA process.
WP:NACTOR are unfounded. Another vexatious AfD from the anti-porn brigade. --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Claiming ulterior motives behind the AfD process amounts to a serious violation of
personal attack. Let's focus on the discussion and leave home the unnecessary roughness. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If you think I have violated guidelines take to to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard, if not don't throw mud to try and discredit opposition to the nomination. --John B123 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John B123, I do think you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines by throwing around accusations of conspiracy but I won't bother with ANI. If you think your behavior is good in this exchange, carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me reveal this: When the criteria change things get changed! If tomorrow, for example, the consenus is that hockey players are not notable as such and they have to satisfy some other, general criteria, we would see a tsunami hiting the articles of hockey players. It's important to underatand this!

And that would happen NOT because some editors have an "anti-hockey" agenda or whatever, but because when the criteria change, Wikipedia changes! The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO denies porn related subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them. It is normal (nay, it is to be expected) that porn related articles will start getting deleted. So, please, let's all try to get along, without any aggravation. AfDs are enough work as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, but the simple fact is that the anti-porn brigade started to AfD these article before WP:PORNBIO was depreciated, and in fact the same editors were the front runners in PORNBIO being depreciated. --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia notability policy re: subject-specific guidelines" The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO does not "[deny] porn-rleated subjects the Wikinotability it previously afforded them" in any sense whatsoever. It denies them the inherent notability it previously afforded them, which is a completely different thing. Since nobody arguing to keep the article is relying on the deprecated inherent notability arguments bu, we need sources;t rather going back to general notability guidelines, The Gnome's comment isn't relevant to this AfD at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually misunderstand precisely nothing,
WP:GNG, and do on. (What has changed via the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO abt sources & awards I explain further below, in response to another remark you made.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG. The deprecation of WP:PORNBIO said absolutely nothing about sources: any question of sources wasn't put in the RfC, wasn't discussed in any significance during the RfC, and there was no mention of it in the closer's remarks about the RfC. The attempt to stretch the very clear and unarguable outcome of that RfC to that desired outcome is trying to take two and two and argue that you've got twenty-seven. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

It's clear that you do not understand the consequences of having WP:PORNBIO deprecated and particulary the relevance of what it contained that has now been stricken off. Continue to believe that we can treat porn-related subjects as if WP:PORNBIO is still with us. There has never been an argument from my part as to
WP:GNG, since this is the set of criteria to which the notability claim of porn related persons has gravitated. You may .continue to use porn-related sources, porn awards, and the like, to establish WP:GNG notability. Do so and see how far this gets you. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no clearer way to say this: deprecating a subject-specific guideline does not mean that anything that was previously referred to in that guideline is explicitly excluded from any consideration regarding notability. You need to actually amend the guidelines to say that, and that requires an RfC of itself. It doesn't happen because you wish really hard. You could actually propose this, or you could repeat the extent to which you've misunderstood how subject-specific guidelines work on failed AfD after failed AfD when notable people get nominated and your entire argument is based on imaginary guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about this alleged anti-porn conspiracy in Wikipedia (and, frankly, this sounds a bit ludicrous). What is certain is that even is such an "anti-porn" crusade was underway before the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, each case would have been assessed, as I'm sure it was, through taking WP:PORNBIO into account. Now, not any more. Quite simple, really. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: It is true that the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that some porn related articles will get deleted. However, that does not mean that every porn related article nominated for deletion will get deleted. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, in the last month there were about 30 articles about people involved in porn that were deleted, with 7 Keeps. There are currently 9 active deletion debates about people involved in porn, and this is the only one that's facing significant opposition, probably because of the Good Article status. I agree that getting along without aggravation is a worthwhile goal; the easiest way to achieve that might be to let this particular article stand, and be content with the 30-40 articles that are or will soon be deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Toughpigs. The AfD process is not an invitation for trade. If one article must go, it must go. If one hundred articlesmust go, they must go. There is no room for error here, i.e. no room for "pet projects", "sentimental attachments", or simple personal preferences. If the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO means that one thousand articles must go, because they nolonger meet the current, post-deprecation criteria, then they must go. It's truly very simple, as simple as it can get. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, whether one, a hundred or a thousand articles "must go" is not up to one person to decide; it's decided case by case in these discussions. I think your passion for a clean sweep in this subject area is weakening your case for this individual discussion. If it truly is "very simple", then why do you have to work this hard to accomplish your goal? -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about one person deciding the fate of articles? Who said anything about actually deleting hundreds of articles? Who said anything about "sweeps", clean or not so clean? Certainly not me.

consensus

. The possibility of many ("hundreds") of articles getgting deleted arises every time such a drastic change in criteria happens, but possibility does not mean certainty. Each AfD should be examined on its own merits.

All I'm doing, Toughpigs, is elaborating on the new status of criteria for porn-related subjects (persons, in particular). The change itself is very simple. The resistance to the change is not, which is understandable since there has obviously been a lot of work in creating and maintaining many of the affected articles. At the end of the day, all that I'm "passionate" about is having the extant criteria applied. Which, again, is as simple as it gets. Mistaking this for some kind of "anti-porn" agenda is a serious error, though it is your privilege. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the article is GA is not material to notability. In any case, the article was promoted in 2008 when the standards were much more lax. For example, most citatitions are from promotional industry publications (
WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG as demostrated above. This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe this was even considered. It is impossible to fully tell the history of the porn in internet age without giving significant attention to Haze. ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Greetings,

Wikipedia's notability criteria? As always, I'm willing to change my mind when the facts change!

-The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete If the best source I can find is a tabloid journalism piece explaining her association with
WP:BLPSOURCES takes priority. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There's more than enough here to pass GNG. A couple of editors seem to be taking a position of "excluding sources discussing what she's notable for, she doesn't pass
WP:GNG" which is not how that works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Greetings, The Drover's Wife. Please note that sources demonstrating notability in the porn business no longer qualify as supportive of notability, not after WP:PORNBIO has been conclusively deprecated. This is why all the (numerous) sources showing that our subject is a well known member of the porn industry are excluded from the evidence; not for any other reason. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization. The only thing that deprecation of PORNBIO indicates is that the awards do not count for notability. If you want to deprecate the AVN as an unreliable source for porn subjects, that consensus needs to be established at
Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As Coffeeandcrumbs says, that's completely untrue. Deprecating a subject-specific notability guideline means that there is no longer a pathway to automatic, inherent notability for articles within that subject and articles within it then are assessed according to
WP:IAR argument about that one, just a couple of people with very strong opinions getting overly hopeful. As I said originally, that's just not how this works. It's also a position that's going to harm your case sooner or later: I'm someone who thinks we had way too many articles on people in porn for many reasons and would have supported the deprecation of PORNBIO if I'd seen it, but if the same couple of people keep going after actually-notable people on this obviously-incorrect misconception of the deletion process it's likely going to inspire a move to replace it with something instead of just using GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll state again that a person in the porn industry needs to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO redirects us - nothing more and nothing less. A person who has worked exclusively within the porn industry need not possess Wikinotability elsewhere to have an article about that subject merit an inclusion. That's as clear as it can get! We should be having very easy discussions about the porn-related subjects put through the AfD process but insread we get arguments about this or that porn award. Well, when a criterion is stricken off, The Drover's Wife, the text that we deprecate is significant in helping us understand what precisely has changhed. Here's the relevant text of WP:PORNBIO, as it once stood: [The subject must have:] won a well-known award such as an AVN Award; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or been a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN, the XRCO or equivalent. All that is now gone. -The Gnome (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC that deprecated
WP:BOLD move by some random user after a brief discussion had resolved to do something else entirely with the redirect and has no basis in policy, guideline or even any past discussion whatsoever, so no, these articles do not need to meet the criteria to which WP:PORNBIO
redirects.

Again, WP:PORNBIO deprecated the notion that the criteria you listed were grounds for inherent notability - that is, grounds for an automatic keep regardless of sourcing. It did not, in any sense, mean that they are irrelevant to notability - it just means that they need to be considered on the same basis as every other claim to notability that isn't specifically prescribed (either as inherently notable or as definitively not relevant to notability) under a subject-specific guideline (which includes a huge proportion of Wikipedia biographies). Again, on both counts this demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings about how Wikipedia notability guidelines work: people might well disagree on sources, but your arguments here are based on a belief that is objectively wrong. In short, what you're advocating would require a completely different and likely much more contentious RfC to actually change guidelines to incorporate that belief; there's no basis whatsoever for it in current guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, porn-award-rendered notability has been defenestrated. With WP:PORNBIO in place, porn awards were assigning to a person notability; after its demise, they do not. As to the deprecation RfC saying nothing about persons now having to meet
WP:NACTOR, etc, hitting the link to WP:PORNBIO
now, see where it takes you.

But do carry on arguing that only the automatic keep of porn-related persons has ben lost and that AVN (for example) render notability. The whole thing is getting absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the specific wording in a Wikipedia guideline that supports the interpretation that porn-related sources or claims to notability are irrelevant for consideration under the

WP:NACTOR. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

look at the project porn list of deletion discussions towards t he top of this discuss ion and look the discussions relati ng to the red links and you will cle arly see your argument has absolutely no.basis in what we actually do.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

I'm not sure what you're suggesting or even who you're responding to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Changed my mind after seeing the evidence presented. Looks like I'll have another project! Great work. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn't find any really good, solid material about her that would make me convinced she's notable, outside of making a video for a rock band and staring in pornographic films" You are making a

WP:NOTVALUABLE argument. You and I may not think what the sources are covering is important,[31] but the point is they do. There are three academic journal articles that provide criticism of her scenes. They could have chosen any scene, but they chose hers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply