- 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. WP:SNOW keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Littoral rights (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 more a dictionary definition than notable article in accordance with WP:GNG. Only source points to a dictionary, and is almost like an article on definition of Apple sourcing Webster dictionary PenulisHantu (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. A Google Scholar search gets more than 500 hits for "littoral rights", and the first page of results turns up several articles that have the term in their title and appear to be primarily about the topic, so there is definitely room for an encyclopedic article on the topic. BD2412 T 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is certainly encyclopaedic although the current article is little more than a definition. Not my area so I won’t try to expand it but there are plenty of sources if anyone wants to do so. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a legal term of some significance, often paired with riparian water rights, and that's the littoral truth. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is certainly notable but the article needs to read beyond just a definition. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, the article needs work but the subject is notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per BD2412 and Clarityfiend. Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BEFORE. This is a notable legal concept, akin to riparian rights although distinct. 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BEFORE and common sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Oh lord.. this is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It's snowing in AFD land. It is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Certainly article can and should be improved. Speaking as a lawyer, this is one of the clearest cases of a poorly thought out and considered WP:AFD. WP:Notability WP:GNG WP:BEFORE. If you bothered to click on any of the links for searches at the top of this page, you should have known this is silly. What a waste of valuable editor time! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ali Banat (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)
insufficient evidence of notability --one obit, one minor article DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep – Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- "Who was Ali Banat, the Muslim philanthropist who recently passed away?" from Metro
- "Muslim millionaire turned humanitarian Ali Banat dies from ‘gift’ of cancer" from Metro
- "Why Ali Banat had called cancer a gift?" from The Siasat Daily
- "Ali Banat: the man with the Gift of Cancer" from Daily Times
- "Australian Muslim millionaire turned humanitarian Ali Banat dies" from SBS
- "A Muslim millionaire who gave all his money and sports cars to charity dies from cancer" from The Standard
- 'We are not supporting terrorists': Islamic charity founder claims the Commonwealth Bank shut his accounts because he 'helps Muslims' from The Daily Mail
- "A Millionaire Gave Away All His Wealth To The Needy & His Reason For Doing So Is Really Inspiring" from MensXP.com
- "Muslim charity MATW boycotts big bank after account closure" from The Daily Telegraph
- And on and on... Missvain (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Missvain's sources, which clearly establish notability. AfD is not cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(I'm convinced, withdrawing AfD.' DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Keep I was disappointed to not find anything in The Age of the SMH, although perhaps not surpised! I would have been happier if there was something in main stream media other than just a brief obit in SBS, but this pushed me from a weak keep to a keep. My main concern remaining is is it "Banat" or "MATW" which is actually the notable subject here? Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn. Wm335td (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, Has significant coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jaclyn Raulerson (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)
Raulerson is not notable. Winning Miss Florida is not a default sign of notability. Only one source is maybe an indepdent third party reliable source. Her own college newspaper is not such nor is IMDb. The last sources looks likely to be too much of a human interest story to add towards passing GNG. My online search shows more sources not adding towards GNG. These include one about her marriage from the neighborhood page of the Plant City paper, and the staff file from her current employer. There is nothing coming even close to showing Raulerson as passing in any way the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep -- Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- "Jaclyn Raulerson of Plant City Vies for Miss America This Week" from The Ledger
- "UCF student crowned Miss Florida wants to focus on helping sick children" from the Orlando Sentinel
- "From This Day: Jaclyn Raulerson and Jarod Dicks" from the Plant City Observer
- "Her Crowning Glory" from The Tampa Tribune
- "A Knight's Quest for Miss America" from UCF Today
- "UCF's Raulerson Crowned Miss Florida: 'An Honor'" from The Orlando Sentinel
- "City honors Raulerson for Miss Florida crown" from The Tampa Tribune
- "Miss Florida hopeful gets charity honored" from The Tampa Tribune
- Miss Teen Heart Crowned" from The Tampa Tribune
- "Miss Florida shares travails with bullying" from The Tampa Tribune
- "UCF Student is Miss Florida" from UCF Today
- Tips and tactics to bully-proof your children" from Orlando Family Magazine
- and on and on... Missvain (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Many of those sources are so local they would never add towards GNG, or are human interest stories in hyper local papers, or are the publication of the college she attended at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator should stop AfDing and PRODing the articles of multiple women until Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Beauty_pageants:_Award_with_own_WP_article_=_"well-known_and_significant_award_or_honor" rules on his disputed claim that a "Miss Florida" winner who got significant independent press coverage is not notable. Such awards have historically been an important source of scholarships and recognition for young women. The press coverage of such contests is much more intense and widely read than coverage for many sports awards that confer notability on young men. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE - plenty of sources from around Florida. She was a Miss America finalist. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG per the numerous sources above. Another frivolous nomination by this user. Might be time for some further action against him. Smartyllama (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Sympathy with the nominator as I did not easily find RS and certainly not much to fill out a bio...Just WP:BARE. I guess I can say she barely passes WP:ANYBIO with her Miss Florida 2010 and her Top 7 placement in the Miss America competition. Edit: Good work by Missvain listing the local coverage. Wm335td (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- S. John Launer (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:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep – I couldn't find anything but the Variety obit that provided "ample" coverage. He seems to have been in so many television shows and films, often playing authority figures. It's just the significant coverage stinks. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
WeakKeep as it technically passes muster. Played in some significant films and to have been on Perry Mason for nine years was huge. Wouldn't surprise me if an offline source has a little more about him. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)- Delete a bunch of mainly uncredited roles does not add up to notability. Also one source is never enough on its own to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Having a Variety obituary is notable. ミラP 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Added two sources, one of which is an on-set accident that he was in (not tremendously significant coverage, but relevant to his biography) and the other of which is a review that provides coverage of his performance in a play. It took me some digging through the many newspaper mentions of him to find these things and I am hopeful there is other coverage out there as well. Let me be clear that I think it's enough for a keep as is. Consequently I am removing the "weak" out of my "keep." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Prolific character actor, who played supporting roles in many notable films and TV series. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mynampally rohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. All of the sources used in the article are the same paid-for press release (as seen by this disclosure at the bottom of the Hindustan Times version) with slightly different wording. Likely either a paid for WP:PROMO article or a vanity page. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Coverage appears to be exclusively self-manufactured. Google brings up many results, but as the nominator observed, all appear to be derivative of the same press release. I just clicked through 5 that read almost identically, with the only difference being the adjective in front of "horseback rider." Is he versatile, professional, flexible, or adventurous as a rider? I'm not sure, but I don't believe he's notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete nothing much to add after the statements of GPL93, and Skeletor3000. Whatever I could find were PR/paid articles. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. I am not sure if it is a vanity article, or promo. But given his career as "travel influencer" (whatever the heck it is), I think he is trying to promote his tours n travel "consultancy" (not agency), or again; just a vanity article establishing himself as "experienced bareback horse riding with cats on saddle traveller" (this makes more sense than the article). —usernamekiran (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete despite several references, this reads more like a promotional material that's short of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Way too promotional and lacking quality refs. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. "Travel influencer" is nonsense, and a neologism at best. This page is a jumble of poor citations, neologisms, PR, and run of the mill coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Please, not another "influencer". This one with some 23K followers, which is something anyone can buy for about $25. Can we depricate or blacklist in.news.yahoo.com, m.dailyhunt.in, hindustantimes.com, ibtimes.co.in, latestly.com, mid-day.com. They're all garbage. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Team New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, with tag in place since 2008. The team has apparently been affiliated with 3 separate academic institutions, so there is no clear target for merge or redirect. The bulk of the article is apparently original research. Coverage consists of the expected variety from campus newspapers, with name mentions in other sources, such as Wired. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: The Wired source (and I agree that it's something of a namedrop, of shaky notability) is the only G-news hit for "Team New England" + solar. A more general Google search turns up nothing but the aforementioned namedrops and various Wiki mirrors of this article. No trace of this club exists at any of the schools listed in the article. The first source is disqualified as primary. Beyond all of that, the list of "Races and accomplishments" is full of chest-thumping puffery, with some outright untruths (for instance, their claim of winning PPIHC is a lie). Beyond that, all the content of the article comes from an anon IP and two SPAs, for whom this was their collective complete Wikipedia involvement. Ravenswing 02:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete yep, that pretty much sums it up. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fahmid-ur-Rahman (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 writer. Fails every criteria listed on WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO also. None of author books is notable. All references listed in the article are primary or fails WP:RS. I did a web search but didn't found anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: As author-editor of the proposed article-for-deletion, I absolutely agree that all sources given in the article are primary; there is a dearth of published secondary sources. However, the fact that the author has published several books as listed in the bibliography is surely indicative of WP:GNG, and impetus for further research. --~Mohammad Hossain~ 21:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, GNG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and publishing several books doesn’t pass GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- GNG looks a little less relevant here than WP:NAUTHOR. To show an WP:NAUTHOR pass, though, you'd generally need to find several reviews of the subject's books. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the observation regarding WP:NAUTHOR. I can look up for reviews on the subject of the said author's books.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have added two reviews and a link to a recent article of the writer in a popular journal, all in Bangla I am afraid, which list some biographical details, including names of some works. --~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will work on adding some more content in the page from some of the sources listed.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Adding non-notable &/or non reliable sources like Punorpath.com, shoncharon.com, Pathchokro.com doesn't prove notability. You need source like prothom alo, daily star etc. also note one line, mention from those site won't consider notable. Whatever you consider WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, subject should be fulfill the basic criteria (received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources ... ... and independent of the subject) to be notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are right. I have not found any sources on the author from either of the newspapers you mention, Prothom Alo or Daily Star. Punorpath is a hardcopy popular journal with printed hard copies. The website link was given for more accessible reference. I will add further updates on secondary source material if and when I find them.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Adding non-notable &/or non reliable sources like Punorpath.com, shoncharon.com, Pathchokro.com doesn't prove notability. You need source like prothom alo, daily star etc. also note one line, mention from those site won't consider notable. Whatever you consider WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, subject should be fulfill the basic criteria (received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources ... ... and independent of the subject) to be notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will work on adding some more content in the page from some of the sources listed.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have added two reviews and a link to a recent article of the writer in a popular journal, all in Bangla I am afraid, which list some biographical details, including names of some works. --~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the observation regarding WP:NAUTHOR. I can look up for reviews on the subject of the said author's books.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- GNG looks a little less relevant here than WP:NAUTHOR. To show an WP:NAUTHOR pass, though, you'd generally need to find several reviews of the subject's books. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly. Perhaps there are sources in Bangla? If so, I'm happy to review and re-consider my suggestion. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Missvain:Having read his work, I was surprised that there is such a lack of coverage. The subject may have coverage in hard to come by print material, which is unavailable online. Most of his books were published in Bangladesh at a time when there is increasing government surveillance of the digital domain in Bangladesh, which may partially explain why such secondary material does not exist; he is critical of the established historiography on the region. Perhaps, and hopefully so, we shall not be having such a conversation on notability in a few years time. Thanks for your helpful feedback and valuable observation. Much love! --~Mohammad Hossain~ 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Inadequately sourced to demonstrate notability and Mohammad Hossain's admission that better sourcing does not exist seals it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rayan Rahman (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 businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG & also per WP:ANYBIO he does not scale through. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails GNG. I'm happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly are presented in Bangla. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL. One of tens of thousands of business persons who want to alleviate poverty while getting something for themselves, whether profits or publicity. We are not a free web-host. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yamai Devi, Rashin Ahmednagar (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)
Per my PROD, I cannot find anything on it to make it considered WP:NOTE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment -- If kept, rename to something like Jagdamba Mata temple, Rashin. Nevertheless, it is said to be based on a book, but what book is not stated. We regularly delete articles on local churches as NN. I see nothing in this article to demonstrate that it is WP notable. Hence I lean towards delete, but I do not know enough to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - it was I who challenged the PROD, simply because I had intended to copy it to my own space before it disappeared but forgot, so had to call it back. As it stands it's probably not possible to salvage, but it's quite a well-known temple and I would be surprised if there were not other sources besides the book mentioned. I don't have the time to look now, so would not oppose deletion, but with the possibility of re-creation later if more does turn up. Ingratis (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to moving it into Draft-space. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks but no need - I don't work with Drafts. Ingratis (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete WP:TNT and start again. No easily available sourcing to even make a start at fixing it. Mattg82 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails general notability guidelines – at least in English. I'm happy to re-evaluate if other language sources exist. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT and my standards for houses of worship. The huge amount of work to fix this essay is greater than the apparent lack of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- List of Latin names of mountains (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)
Simple translation list. Fails WP:LISTN. There's also some possible WP:OR in the list, as some of the entries are marked with "?". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of lakes. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete About time for a bulk AFD. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY, especially when half of these are the same as they're known in English... Reywas92Talk 19:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete “Wikipedia is not a dictionary” is a clear policy, and this entire list was literally copied straight out of a dictionary.--Pontificalibus 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, Per above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary,WP:DICTIONARY Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Our readers know where to find it on Google. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Whilst referencing for the article could be improved, the subject has been commented as being notable. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tyler Coppin (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:ENTERTAINER. The subject has a large body of work: however, his roles appear to be walk-on parts or as a background artist. I'm not convinced that any of the awards listed are significant enough to demonstrate notability. Looking at the edit history, I'm also concerned that the main editor may have a conflict of interests (he was he of only two editors to add any content to the recently-deleted page for a one-man play written and performed by the subject). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: He's got roles in at least three notable movies: Winchester, Predestination and The Death and Life of Otto Bloom. On each of those pages, he's listed somewhere around #8 in the cast -- supporting roles, but not walk-ons. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep – For Toughpigs' rationale and he's also in Shakespeare in Love in Melbourne and it's gained national attention in Australia.[1][2] He also writes plays, which have been reviewed in various mainstream publications.[3][4][5][6] There's a lot out there if you know where to look. Missvain (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There is broad and sustained coverage, including performance reviews and bio studies in major mainstream media publications, eg SMH and The Age. Aoziwe (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per above arguments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless the article is properly referenced. The article is almost completely unreferenced. If good coverage of his work exists, it should be cited in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NEXIST says that notability isn't determined by the quality of the article. If there is significant RS coverage, then the subject is notable, and the article should be improved, not deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep His career is very notable on stage, probably less so on screen, and he's won a Helpmann Award. Substantial coverage of Coppin in the context of his solo play Lyrebird: Tales of Helpmann easily seen by googling that and his name together. Lack of referencing is insufficient for deletion. Boneymau (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Some more sources—especially for his awards—would be good, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Emma Vigeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as nominator Vigeland does not meet notability standards established by WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. The article only lists four sources, including a dead SF Gate article/video and a user-contributed Medium article. I will remind fans of Vigeland's YouTube content or Twitter punditry that her followers or subscribers do not automatically merit a Wikipedia article. KidAd (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- DELETE. There are no RS in the article. In case anyone gets confused, the "Hill" sources are links to clips from a web-show hosted by the Hill where the subject of the article has appeared. They are not news reports by the Hill. As there is no RS on this person, it's impossible to write a proper article. There was a clear consensus to delete this page in 2017, and there has been no RS coverage of her since then to justify keeping this time around. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for Ms. Vigeland. Happy to make it a soft delete in case things change. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL and Too soon. I don't see anything she's done other than what thousands of other progressives have done online: criticize leaders of both parties. How does that pass WP:GNG? I don't see a man bites dog case here. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thank you everyone for your additional participation. I am deleting this based on the arguments presented, including by Blue Square Thing and others. Perhaps someday he'll be eligible for an article. Thanks again for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bhavya Bishnoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted as an attempted politician who failed WP:N. I G4'd a re-creation, but an argument was made he passes WP:NCRICKET because he played in The University Match (cricket). I don't buy that, but figured it was worth offering a forum to discuss it, as it may make the G4 deletion kinda shaky. WilyD 09:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:CRIN guidelines by having played first-class cricket, the highest domestic level of cricket in England. Recent AfD's, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Balac have kept cricketers who have played a lone first-class match. StickyWicket (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)— Note to the closing admin: StickyWicket (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. - FitIndia Talk Commons 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NCRICKET. This article was earlier deleted through this discussion as a politician or his son. Now it is back as a cricketer who just played one inter college match. Also there is no independent coverage about him as a cricketer, actually there is no coverage of him at all as a cricketer except in the following link [7]. If there is coverage about him then that is about politics and his father and grand father. Also why should a experienced editor write a article about him as I see other editors who wrote this before were blocked for [8] which looked like paid editing. Finally as a cricketer he does not pass Wikipedia NCRICKET and GNG. 42.106.193.161 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment He does pass WP:NCRIC as the Varsity Match is a first-class match. The creator of this article has created many articles about cricket players, I think it is bad faith to accuse him of paid editing. In the past week he has created a number of other articles about Oxford University cricketers, this seems to be no different. Spike 'em (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. How does an IP just find an AfD, I always find that curious. Spike 'em, didn't you know Alnod Boger paid me 80 years in advance to write his article ;) In response to the question "why should a experienced editor write a article about him", well because that's what I do on here, I write cricket articles. StickyWicket (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply to @AssociateAffiliate: The first source you have added Hindustan Times has no link to the source. Could you please provide that? Also how did you make the connection that this individual is the cricketer and the politician and not two different people with same name, could you provide a source to that? Last of all to your question where did a IP find this AFD is that I had speedy this page and there is nothing to be surprised. 42.106.217.125 (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've added ref to what looks like the article from Hindustan Times, which describes BB as a 26 year old (in April 2019) former Delhi youth cricketer who attended St Anthony's, Oxford, which all ties in with the information on the cricket pages used as sources. CricketArchive lists various Delhi U15s games on his record. The team sheets for Varsity Matches usually list the colleges the players attend should that be needed. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I had nominated this article the last time around as it failed WP:NPOL. I still feel it does not pass the criteria for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Another disconcerting thing here is the repeated recreation of this page. Their seems to be a concerted effort to recreate this page. (Note:I don't mean to cast any aspersions on the current creator as he/she seem to be long term trusted editors). - FitIndia Talk Commons 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete- Given that nothing whatsoever has changed since the last AfD, which closed with consensus to delete, I'm not sure why G4 doesn't apply. If anything, this should have gone through DRV. Looking at the sources, I can't see that the previous AfD got this wrong. Reyk YO! 10:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I had G4'd it, but the argument was made that the new version asserts he passes WP:NCRICKET, which wasn't made or discussed in the previous AfD. So, although I'm not convinced he does, I found it a plausible enough assertion to buy that G4 may not apply. The choice of here or DRV was perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but usually DRV is not posited as the place to consider new arguments, so ultimately I figured this was the better venue (but I don't think it actually makes a significant difference which path gets taken of those two). WilyD 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not convinced that the modern Varsity match can be considered a match played at the "top-level of domestic cricket". Perhaps in the 1920s, but it is very clearly a very, very long way below any other English first-class standard nowadays - including the "friendly" matches played at the start of the season. I'm not convinced at all that this meets NCRIC - but then I increasingly tend to think that NCRIC is a total waste of bytes anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete even if the University match is first class I don't think it's enough to pass the notability guidelines. WP:ATHLETE says the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Passing WP:NCRIC therefore at best only suggests that sources passing the GNG are likely to exist. The GNG is the ultimate standard, rather than the SNG. While the SNG has a lot of value in cases where the best sources may not be accessible, if he has notability based on a recent cricket match in the UK then sources passing the GNG would be available easily on the internet, and there aren't any. There are some discussing his failed run for political office in India, but we don't usually keep articles on that basis and I don't see any reason to do so here. Hut 8.5 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC, which confers a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping @Cesdeva, Johnpacklambert, and Bearcat: from the first AFD. ミラP 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete If he passes the notability for cricketeers that is clearly flawed. Cricket does not evidently require a "first class" match to be fully pro. This tells me we should stop treating playing in one first class match a sign of notability and start requiring actual showing of multiple sources, instead of listings on directories of cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting due to pinging of editors for review. Want to make sure everyone gets a chance (or I'll be closing this as no consensus).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - this was implicit in my comment above, but I'll be clear about it. On the grounds that the University Match in the 21st century is nowhere close to the top level of domestic cricket in the UK, so fails CRIN. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete per John, and Hut. SNG does not always trump GNG. Sometimes we have to stop taking the policies to its letter, and use our common sense. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 CPAN. Closing as a merge and redirect. Looks like the subject just isn't passing our requirements just yet for his own article. Missvain (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Adam Kennedy (programmer) (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 procedural nomination requested by 155.143.16.103 (talk · contribs). The nomination rationale is "Every open source contributor does not require an article". I am neutral Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Nominated before in 2009, WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kennedy (Programmer). Mattg82 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to CPAN, new section Notable people. There would seem to be no doubt that the subject is important and "notable" within the Perl community, and is a likely search term, but I cannot find sufficient to satisfy GNG. More than half the current article is about "Perl stuff", so trim and merge the article to a new section in CPAN. Aoziwe (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I would claim that Adam's work is as significant as Damian Conway, another Australian active in the Perl community with a Wiki page. Adam's recent work at Kaggle and now at Apple are significant and in addition to his open source contributions. This level of achievement is fairly uncommon for Australian IT people, and worthy of note. Happy to expand article if needed. Teraplane (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you could provide a few of the new references you would use to expand the article, you might get me to change my !vote. I did not recognise any that might bolster up a GNG claim, but then I might not have looked sufficiently. Aoziwe (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, have expanded recent career section, which is not Perl focused. Teraplane (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but that was not much at all? And, importantly, speaker bios are normally provided by the speaker to the seminar? So hardly IRS? Aoziwe (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's all I could find, maybe it's not enough. However, article depth is similar to Adam's peers such as Brian_d_foy, chromatic etc with no AfDs for them. So feel it's appropriate on that basis. As the link I added states, he can’t talk about much of his work as it's propreitary. So someone in this position won't have alot of material about him on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but that was not much at all? And, importantly, speaker bios are normally provided by the speaker to the seminar? So hardly IRS? Aoziwe (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, have expanded recent career section, which is not Perl focused. Teraplane (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you could provide a few of the new references you would use to expand the article, you might get me to change my !vote. I did not recognise any that might bolster up a GNG claim, but then I might not have looked sufficiently. Aoziwe (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Encouraging another round of participation by Wikipedians. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to CPAN, new section Notable people. I concur with the reasoning presented by Aoziwe. Most content on him is in technical documentation or self-published, but he is also referred to as making a notable contribution in scholarly writings here Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof which shows some notability in this narrow group.--23mason (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Game Factory Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE shows little but few mentions in passing/press releases. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting, once more, to allow for more community participation. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV - sourcing is terrible to run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- HeroZona Foundation (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)
Advertising; advertising for a valuable cause, but still advertising. There's no way to fix this, because the notability is based only on local sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - laudable but ordinary and local charity. We would not expect that the Girl Scouts, or Ronald McDonald House, or NAACP, or the United Methodist church, would be force to act as web-host for another Charity. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Hindu Sena. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vishnu Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All coverage of Gupta is in the context of his activities with Hindu Sena. I think that we should redirect this article to there. Bringing this to AfD rather than edit warring over it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect I support the proposed redirect by Rosguill, especially after doing my due diligence at reviewing sources. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge article into Hindu Sena. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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! Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 猫 シ Corp. (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)
Makes good music but fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG with zero third-party coverage, and article sourcing reflects such. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Move to Cat Corp. or another appropriate name in the Roman alphabet. The current name violates the naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: One more round here folks out of an attempt to garner more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as failing to establish (or even claim) notability. It also smacks of marketing-speak (which could be fixed). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, WP:COAT, WP:MILL, WP:SPAM and WP:GNG. A brief look by any reader could see this is a mess. The name of the article is not in the Roman alphabet. It's a run-on essay that would take hours to fix into an article. It's clear that it's not about some notable corporation, but some dude, a rando on the Internet. Spam in 2007 could not excused, but in 2020 we can't assume good faith when we see this very obvious spam. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rasmus Mogensen (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 significant coverage found. No major gallery showings found (all appear to be relatively small galleries with no independent coverage of exhibitions). He is listed on a marketing team for a single campaign that won an Epica Award, meaning he may meet a single criterion of WP:ANYBIO. These awards are unfamiliar to me, but several other agencies and individuals who have received them do not have their own articles. Since the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues for so long with minimal improvements, I'm initiating a deletion discussion as recommended in the "Additional criteria" section of WP:BIO. There is relevant previous discussion on the article's talk page, but it operates under dated criteria for WP:ARTIST. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete present form looks more like a promotion/ ads unless more independent and substantial material is added. 10 years since creation of page should be sufficient time for that to happen. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: When I visited Worldcat to see if it knew of any book of his stuff, I didn't see any; but I did find that MoFA Houston has material by him: OCLC 1089319471. I don't understand what it is, and I wonder about its significance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting so a few more experienced editors can weigh on regarding the artists significance. They might have works in major collections. Can someone please spend time to investigate? Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The Le Book 2007 reference, I believe, is nothing more than self promo for the creative world, Instagram in paper form if you like. No other WP:SIGCOV. Mattg82 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SNOW. Clearly fails general notability as well as artistic. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. As was already the consensus before the relist. Sandstein 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Course of employment (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)
Longstanding unsourced stub, apart from the unwikified attribution to a Law Dictionary. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Article does not establish the subject's notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to creating a proper article on the subject. It looks like the topic is notable and the subject of multiple scholarly articles:
- Arising Out and in Course of Employment, 4 Va. L. Reg. 804 (1919).
- Aharon Barak, The Servant's Course of Employment, 1 Isr. L. Rev. 8 (1966).
- Ray A. Brown, Arising out of and in the Course of the Employment in Workmen's Compensation Laws--Part IV, 8 Wis. L. Rev. 217 (1932).
- Marvin E. Duckworth, Injuries Arising out of and In the Course of the Employment, 30 Drake L. Rev. 861 (1980).
- There are others, but these are the few I've bothered to look at the text for to confirm the treatment goes beyond mere title. (A whole bunch more are simple case notes, discussing a then-recent case or two that construe the term; those don't carry much weight for me.)
- But in its present form it's just a dicdef, and someone who cares more than I do would need to do some substantial writing to make it an actual article to meet the "Keep" threshhold. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - the issue is significantly notable, but agree the article currently lacks sources. As one example of notability, Australia's High Court had an interesting case a few years back where the issue was considered, in the context of a public servant who had claimed workers compensation when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex with a friend in a motel booked for her overnight by her employer for a work trip. She succeeded all the way up to the High Court, which overturned the previous decisions and found it was not in the "course of employment". Bookscale (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom - Article is not supported by reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - the issue is more whether they are available (which they certainly are). Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Please remember, AfD is not used for cleaning up articles. It's used to explore whether an article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Relisting this to allow for more discussion. Bookscale expresses that there might be more sourcing out there and TJRC "voted" for delete, despite finding sources and expressing interest in seeing it deleted for a new article to be written. Please review from a stand point on if you believe it meets our guideline for inclusion, rather the article quality. If there is room for improvement, we can even consider draftifying it or moving it to a userspace for clean up and improvement. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect per WP:TNT and WP:CHEAP. This not a good enough foundation to write a readable article. Something could be written, but this is an unsourced essay. To avoid losing the article history, I suggest redirecting to Respondeat superior, which is the ultimate consequence of this doctrine, rather than Agency law or Employment law. Thank you for re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sticking with my "Delete" !vote, above. A redirect to Respondeat superior would be inappropriate. That doctrine is about when acts of an employee can be attributed to the employer. The usage in this article — and more importantly, in most published sources discussing it — is about a very different concept, about when an injury is sufficiently work-related to be covered by worker's comp insurance. If we must redirect, workers' compensation is a better target, but since it has very little on the concept being redirected, that's not likely to be a helpful redirect either; WP:PLA.
- Missvain, to clarify why my !vote is for "delete" despite the topic being notable: the only thing worth keeping in the article is the title. Yes, it's a notable topic, and there could be an article written on this notable topic. but this article isn't it. My thinking is along the lines of WP:TNT: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." TJRC (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Future the Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a musician and manager, not properly sourced as the subject of enough substantive media coverage to clear the inclusion criteria for either role. Of the six footnotes here, #1 is a 44-word blurb about him in a listicle; #2 and #3 are both one-off glancing mentions of his name in articles that aren't about him; #4 is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a Tumblr, which is not a reliable source at all; and #6 is a short blurb which is covering him solely in the context of having had something stolen from him rather than in the context of accomplishing anything relevant to our notability standards for musicians or business managers. The only source that actually might be worth something is #5 (Billboard) -- but it's paywalled, so I can't verify how much it's worth, and even just the most basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source that's worth anything. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist — but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage comments and more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage, to justify inclusion. Mattg82 (talk)
- 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 Vorenus and Pullo. Closing as a redirect. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Titus Pullo (Rome character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vorenus and Pullo where the fictional version of this character is already mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vorenus and Pullo per Aoba47. The fictional characters are based on these. Would suggest a merge but everything that would be merged is there already so redirect and merge are functionally the same thing. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do not keep -- I cannot believe we need such a long article in a fictional character in a not very notable TV series. Redirect somewhere. An alternative might be to an article on the series or its characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 this one as it's common for us to have articles like this. Feel free to improve and remove any concerns regarding "copy and paste" (copyright?). Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2012 Canadian honours (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)
Per WP:LISTPEOPLE. A list containing mostly non-notable people, copy-and-pasted from the sources provided. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Willbb234: Hello,
- This is the second time that you have send me your "warning" to delete 2012 Canadian honours page. I have written to you yesterday, someone else has deleted your actions (which was not me) and I have written on the page's talk page. This was my argument:
- I would like to advocate why it would be unfortunate to delete this page:
- Wikipedia has published all British New Year Honours as far back as 1890
- Wikipedia has published all British Birthday Honours as far back as 1860
- Wikipedia has published many Australians honours lists
- Wikipedia has published many New Zealand honours lists.
{{Honours Lists}}
{{Australian Honours Lists}}
{{New Zealand honours lists}}
- I believe that my Canadian honours list pages are honouring the work done by other Wikipedians and allows Canadians to view our own honours lists without have to dig them out from the Canada Gazette. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- You never state what your arguement is to delete the page that I have worked hard to create for Wikipedia. No other honours lists seems to have this warning, therefore I would like to know what the problem is with this page. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ctjj.stevenson: please see my response on my talk page. Sorry for saying that you removed the AfD notice; I didn't see that someone else had. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I've formatted the above discussions, and un-transcluded the templates. @Ctjj.stevenson: That page is insanely large, and appears to be copied and pasted from somewhere. If it was copied from somewhere else, care needs to be take to make sure it isn't violating copyright. It may need to be split to avoid being far too long. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These honours lists are widespread across the Commonwealth realms (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada). The two WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria are generally met: inclusion verified by reliable source (such as Canada Gazette), and notability by WP:BIO which includes "person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (by definition of admission to the Order). Regarding notability of the lists, in each of these Commonwealth countries the full list receives significant media coverage and often verbatim publication of the list itself, as well as detailed coverage of many of the recipients particularly in the higher tiers or with regional or cultural focus (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom). With the copyright question, that may need to be looked at for the Canadian situation, however in Australia, the honours lists are released under CC-BY 3.0 so the list and citation statements can be published under this licence. --Canley (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Canley's rationale. These lists are really useful indexes: they're widely published in reliable sources due to being of significant public interest and because many of them are people who meet our general notability standards (regardless of whether they presently have articles), it allows readers interersted in the awards to click through to our biographical articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Few arguments have been made as to why this article needs to be deleted, with this primarily appearing as a content dispute regarding a split or fork from Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. It appears to contain different information than the main article, making the repeatedly suggested "delete after merging" very dubious from an attribution perspective as per WP:MAD. There's not a strong consensus about the best way to portray this information across these articles, but there's a significant consensus that the content should be preserved in some form, and minimal actual argument as to why having a separate article in this style is an actual issue. ~ mazca talk 01:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad (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)
Same article already exists Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The article is not the same as the Grand Mufti section of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. It expands on the information that is there. IF the information in that section is determined to be enough to cover the Grand Muftiship then this should be redirected to Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Grand Mufti, in either case it should not be deleted. ~ GB fan 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar selectively. I would say that the individual's position as "Grand Mufti" is not universally accepted among Indian muslims. It is better to state such information on a single bio article. The current content of the article anyway is a detailed list of trips, talk and receptions which I don't think needs to be covered in such minute detail.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete after merging anything useful into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. This article is an unnecessary content fork of that one. No need for a redirect as the article title isn't a likely search term (there's already a redirect on the much more plausible Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad) Neiltonks (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Keep The article is not the same as the Grand Mufti section of the article, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. I think the article is Eligible to keep. Meets WP:GNG Authordom (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete and Salt The Muftiship and Grand Muftiship of the person is a fake. Please check the article, Grand Mufti of India. The Hindu Nation (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)User blocked as a sock puppet. ~ GB fan 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)- Merge and redirect to the person's article. It's just a timeline right now (and not a very good one), the relevant details can be copied over as prose. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a timeline of the current Grand Mufti of India on highlights of the major events that took place under his grand muftiship. This article is notable, seems to pass the notability guidelines pretty easily, with numerous multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and is not eligible to delete or merge with another article. Sabith1990 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I think this nomination is part of a series of bad faith works by a group of socks targeting notable articles of Islam in India like: I, II and III, and supporting some non notable articles like: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII. This is not a good faith nomination. The article is a notable timeline of the major activities of the current Grand Mufti of India and the article is meets the GNG, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, as demonstrated by cites in the article. I don't think the article is eligible for merging and there is no reason to delete it. [[User:Akbarali|Akbarali]] ([[User talk:Akbarali|talk]]) (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear @Akbarali: Please don't say unnecessary things. why are you saying this is targeting a religion? I have no doubt about his notability, especially after doing due diligence at reviewing sources but there is no need for multiple articles: Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar and Grand Mufti of India that contain the same content. -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 07:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article does not contain the same content as Grand Mufti of India and Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar articles. Authordom (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear @Akbarali: Please don't say unnecessary things. why are you saying this is targeting a religion? I have no doubt about his notability, especially after doing due diligence at reviewing sources but there is no need for multiple articles: Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar and Grand Mufti of India that contain the same content. -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 07:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This is surely the timeline of Grand Mufti of India highlighting the important events occurring in his tenure . This article is undoubtfully notable, seems to pass the notability guidelines pretty easily, with numerous multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and is not acceptable to remove or merge with another one. I strongly support that this page should be maintained as the article. Luqmankvk (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no sufficient argument has been made for deletion, OP appears confused about why they are even nominating the page for deletion. It appears people are trying to use AfD to play domestic politics which just isn't kosher. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: Nominator says "Same article already exists" which logically means WP:CONTENTFORK, like Neiltonks mentioned above. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- You and I have different conceptions of logic then, the articles certainly don't contain the same content. I don't think this an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: Nominator says "Same article already exists" which logically means WP:CONTENTFORK, like Neiltonks mentioned above. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: Kindly see lead of this article, and Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Grand Mufti. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete after merging anything useful into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, like Neiltonks said above. Everything from this article can be explained in the target article adequetely, and appropriately. Most of the entries are single sentence statements which provide no conext at all. eg:
April 6 – Trip to Singapore.
, same goes for Malaysia (twice),April 19 – Received a Mega reception in Abu Dhabi.
, and Oman (1 May),26 May - Received a reception in Bangalore
, "Mega" reception in Kuwait, Oman, Abu Dhabi, and few others; andApril 22 – Grand Mufti condemned on the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings.
The entire lead of the article is already covered in the target article. Rest of the article is coverage of his receptions, statements, and very few notable/important stuff. All of that can be easily covered in the target article.After the lead, there is only one section: "Timeline". The intro for that section ishighlights of the major events that took place under his muftiship.
But there are like only two (or maybe three) "major events that took under under his muftiship" including his initiation. Rest of the events are like day-to-day activites, dinners, or meetings. Nothing major.The important content should be merged with target article. If the target article becomes very big with time, then it should be WP:SPLIT. Till then there is no need to have this extra article. And like Neiltonks said: no need for a redirect as the article title isn't a likely search term (there's already a redirect on the much more plausible Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad). —usernamekiran (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)- update (I thought I had already included in my rationale above): Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar was sworn in as mufti on 24 February 2019. Currently, a very big chunk of his biographical article contains his statements/activities after him becoming the mufti. If that content is moved to this article, then the BLP article will become very short; if not moved then this article will become redundant content fork. In either scenario, this article is unnecessary, as the content can be covered in target article very adequately/comfortably. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Flinx (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)
Fictional character. Fancruft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. No indications of any reliable secondary sources treating this character in depth. As a series main character, it is conceivable that coverage exists, but any sourceable information that is not only plot summary should first be added to the series article, Humanx Commonwealth, itself probably a borderline case. This unsourced text can safely be deleted. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth races. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete do not see how this meet WP:GNG or even WP:BK. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The character is mentioned on the author's page (Alan Dean Foster), but I am uncertain if that would be a good redirect target as it would be quite jarring for a reader to look up a fictional character and be redirected to a biographical article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Familiar (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 fails WP:JUSTPLOT, as it contains no real-world context, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, and WP:GNG, as it contains no sources, and has been tagged as unsourced for over six years. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Minor fictional concept. This one doesn't even bother to cite any sources, primary or otherwise. Actually searching for sources does not bring up anything substantial in reliable, secondary sources. As there is no sourced content here, there is nothing that should be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be the monster manual. Until Nov. 1st or so it was, but that is another story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fancrufty article, fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Ayya Vaikundar. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lord Vaikundar Avatar (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)
Out-of-process AfC move out of draftspace. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I dream of horses I am not sure that being out of process via AFC is a good reason to delete/even have an afd but I do think that this is a bunch of unencyclopedic nonsense and should just be redirected to Ayya Vaikundar where it's already more than adequately covered. So speedy redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect per Praxidicae. No need for another incarnation of an article on the same person. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect per Praxidicae, and as WP:Redirects are cheap - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sandstein 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Victoria Talwar (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 nomination is a courtesy request on behalf of Dr Talwar who has contacted the WMF via VRTS ticket # 2020012110008396. Dr Talwar contends that her notability is at best borderline. I would add that the stub article only contains one secondary source, the others are all primary, and none of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to be met. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Her Canada Research Chair is tier-2, meaning that it probably isn't enough for WP:PROF#C5. But her citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. As far as WP:NPROF C3 goes, she is also a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and of the Royal Society of Canada. The citation record looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1. The only thing that stops me from an immediate keep !vote is that it looks like her most highly-cited papers are coauthored with her former PhD advisor. Otherwise, she looks notable, nothing borderline about it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (as page creator) — I concur with David Eppstein's evaluation per the WP:PROF criteria; in some circumstances, I would argue for a keep. The question now is whether her wiki-notability is so incontrovertible, and her omission from the encyclopedia would be so hurtful to the project, that her deletion request should be overridden. To that end, I note that I had forgotten I'd created this stub, and it seems the only substantial work done on it since then was to add a few categories. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Her work has been covered in major international publications. Sources include:
- Significant coverage
- "Punishing Kids for Lying Only Makes Them Lie More" from Time
- "Learning to Lie" from New York Magazine
- "How should you deal with your child lying? Expert reveals some of the biggest mistakes parents make" from The Daily Mail
- "Strict parents 'turn children into liars': Disciplinarians mean 'the child does not feel safe telling the truth'" from The Daily Mail
- The following sources discuss her research about lying children:
- "Strict parenting turns children into liars, experts claim" from The Independent
- "YES, MOM AND DAD, I LIED SOMETIMES—BUT THAT’S ALL YOUR FAULT" from Pacific Standard
- "Is Your Child Lying to You? That’s Good" from The New York Times
- "New Year’s Resolution: Be More Honest" from The New York Times
- "Big Little Liars" from The New York Times
- "How to Handle Little Liars" from The Wall Street Journal
- "Why Is My Child Lying?" from Psychology Today
- "Imagine: Children will lie. It’s not a flaw but a necessary milestone" from Indian Express
- "What Makes Children Lie?" from Big Think
- "What Makes Children Lie?" from Healthline
- ...and on and on and on. Just look her up on Google News. I had the WP article about me deleted, but I do not think it was a loss to the encyclopedia and my personal life was being deeply impacted by its existence. If that was the case – the harassment and personal impact of the article - I can consider otherwise , but, frankly, she is notable and I think her and her work is encyclopedic. (Now I know why I was a lying little kid...)Missvain (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree to Delete I think Ms. Talwar is probably sufficiently notable that all else being equal I'd support keeping an article about her -- but, you know, there's a reasonable enough argument for deletion and thus I think we should err on that side here. The citations provided above are helpful and really good, but arguably cover topics on which she has commented rather than providing coverage of Ms. Talwar herself. That, paired with the request, would suggest permitting deletion. That being said, I don't want to suggest that we should institute any sort of guaranteed right not to be covered in Wikipedia -- but when, as here, deleting an article would do no significant harm to the project, and when there is a colorable argument for deletion, I'm in favor of honoring the request. TheOtherBob 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree to Delete per nomination and Bob. --hroest 20:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 term is not even mentioned in the possible redirect target 2000 AD (comics), so it doesn't make sense to redrect there. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mercy Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not every comic strip is notable. What makes this one? I can't find any reliable analysis, reviews, etc. Few mentions in passing on blogs and like. Not sufficient in light of GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (media). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) - While I concur with the nomination that this comic fails the WP:GNG due to the lack of coverage is reliable, secondary sources, it could be useful as search term to redirect to the anthology it appeared in. Though, I'm a bit iffy on that, considering that there appear to be a number of real-life places actually called Mercy Heights, so I would also be fine with straight Deletion if consensus is leaning that way. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I can find one source: 2000 AD: The Creator Interviews - Volume 05. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - It has sat there all but unnoticed since 2006. Seems a shame, but the complete lack of RS, and no evidence of notability means this fails GNG. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ryan Creamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) has not met any of the 10 criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeslaCyberTruck (talk • contribs) 23:46, December 26, 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall talk 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
- ""I Love This Wholesome Porn Channel" from New York Magazine's The Cut
- "A Guy Created His Own Pornhub Channel And Has Been Sharing Hilariously Wholesome And Uplifting Videos" from BuzzFeed
- "Meet the Man Behind PornHub's Most Wholesome Videos" from Men's Health
- "Comedian becomes viral hit after creating PornHub channel to spread wholesome and friendly messages" from The Independent
- "There’s a wholesome, G-rated Pornhub channel" from the New York Post
- and on and on...Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Missvain. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep per Missvain's sources. Easily passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 obvious consensus not to delete the material outright. Whether it should be merged or left as a standalone can be determined by a discussion outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Abeir-Toril (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)
What makes this niche part of D&D verse notable? It's mostly WP:PLOT outside of the 'history of creation' part, but that's based on few mentions in passing/primary sources. I don't see any non-plot analysis of this construct that more in depth than a sentence or two. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to Forgotten Realms. It is merely the name of the world in which the Forgotten Realms setting takes place in, and when you take out all of the primary sourced (and unsourced), in-universe plot information, then its not a necessary WP:SPLIT from the primary topic. The bits of sourced information regarding its History would be useful to add to the "History" section of the Forgotten Realms article, though, and it would serve as a useful redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge/redirect to Forgotten Realms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Forgotten Realms per above. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge the History section to Forgotten Realms#Geography; the rest is excessive in-universe info without demonstrated notability. No need for a spinout-article. – sgeureka t•c 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and then make a new redirect unless those involved with D&D actually show what information would be useful in merging. I see little need to retain anything currently due to failing WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete looking through the sourcing, this doesn't appear to pass our notability guidelines and fails WP:PLOT. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge (with a trim) to Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms#Geography links back to this article so it could be expanded if it could be sourced. In terms of reception/criticism of Abeir-Toril, besides blog posts/forum discussions, I didn't find anything on the continents Maztica or Zakhara even when I looked on JSTOR for articles on D&D and Orientalism (or other types of racial stereotyping). The only source along those lines I found is a Kotaku article on Chult (on the continent of Faerûn).[1] Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment In terms of what can be merged (per TTN), the history section which outlines the development of the geography and then a brief mention of the 4(?) continents. The brief overview can highlight themes, real world influence and when they were added to the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. Secondary sources exist. Actually, Abeir-Toril goes beyond the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, but I guess that would still be the best merge target. This is probably one of the most detailed fictional planets in Western Culture (even though the name often does not appear), so "niche part of the D&D verse" seems an incorrect description. Daranios (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hezrou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. DnD fancruft, deprodded by the usual fan culprit, sigh. Here we go again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd ask you to desist from the name calling. The "usual fan culprit" (that's me, apparently) simply disapproves of editors trying to get articles they don't like deleted under the table by prodding. Prodding should only be used for uncontroversial deletion. Not all of these articles have been deleted once taken to AfD, so it should be obvious by now that their deletion is not uncontroversial. I regularly monitor prodded articles and deprod any article where I consider the prod has been misapplied (and trust me, there are far too many of them). So kindly stop misusing prods (and denigrating those editors who remove them as they are fully entitled to do) and take these articles straight to AfD. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I concur on the name calling. Let's keep all our AfDs (and everything else on wiki) civil and respectful. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Minor fictional creature, using only primary sources. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. It could potentially be used as a redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) (though I doubt its that common of a search term), but even then, I would advocate deletion first, as D&D articles that are merely turned into redirects per consensus have the habit of being restored by IP editors. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think this article should be here, but I think the argument for deletion here is WP:ITSCRUFT. Can we stick to arguments about it not meeting GNG? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). The article doesn't go beyond proving that the fictional element exists and doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Why would a prod be controversial here? – sgeureka t•c 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because even if an article isn't kept at AfD, a prod is also designed to destroy a perfectly legitimate possibility of merging and redirecting. That's why. It is commonly used by editors who don't like a specific article or category of articles in order to get those articles deleted without anyone noticing. Its use on any article whose complete deletion is not blatantly uncontroversial should be prevented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete -per WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of D&D and this is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There is no need to retain such trivial information, and its retention even as a redirect just opens up the usual cycle of someone logging out to discreetly restore it. TTN (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 this one. If someone thinks there is something in this article that they think should be added to whatever "merge" article they prefer, I'm happy to help provide you the material you need to do that (user-fy, etc). Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Shambling mound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Previously deleted, but it has been well over a decade at this point. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. DnD cruft with OR on top (society section, etc., lol). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The history of this article is a bit confusing, but it would appear that this was already deleted once at AFD, recreated as a redirect to Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons), and then, like so many other previously deleted/redirected D&D articles, restored to a full article against consensus by a anonymous IP editor. Regardless of this, though, it does not pass the WP:GNG. The only sources are primary or trivial, and the article it was split out from is, itself, undergoing an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a monster manual. It actually is, but it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the previous AfD, as the article's sourcing has not improved at all after the previous discussion, and then salt to prevent further recreation attempts. Not a very active user (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, NNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! this can't be deleted as its an iconic (to D&Ders anyway) monster!! but coola with no reliable sources available this has to be a delete, ..... okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge as above. Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I don't quite know how you would merge this into a list, and it fails our notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt As non-notable cruft. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sergey Grigoryev (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about footballer who made a single 45 minute appearance in a Russian National Football League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (searching is tricky because this is a rather common Russian name) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [9]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete playing one time in a game should not more make someone notable than being the professor of record for one course at a university makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - a handful of minutes in a professional game do not make up for WP:GNG failure. GiantSnowman 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Shea McKeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, with only real coverage found regarding an arrest and suspension. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played for a minor league team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the coverage turned up by my searches relate to a 2006 arrest and suspension from the Sourth Carolina team. E.g., here. Predicating an article on such coverage is inconsistent with WP:BLP1E. I did also find this relating to a 2008 injury after transferring to NC State, but not enough to pass the WP:GNG bar. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:CRIMINAL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tywain Myles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Former Division II football player and NFL practice squad member. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I found this, but the other coverage found consists of brief transactional announcements like this. Not enough to pass WP:GNG IMO. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails all inclusion criteria for gridiron football players, even the current inclusion criteria are insanely low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails NGRIDIRON never playing professionally. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and relevant athlete-specific notability guidelines. There is insufficient nontrivial coverage in WP:RS on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Highest award is first team all conference in a division 2 conference. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 here among a majority of editors that there is sufficient, significant coverage across the sources available to demonstrate notability. There appears to be some good-faith disagreement over the significance of some coverage, and the reliability of some sources, but most participants seem to consider it sufficient in total. ~ mazca talk 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Sadie Collective (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 dubious article and appears to be notable until you dig into sources which are almost all primary or unreliable as far as notability goes (ie. Forbes contributor pieces). Many of the trimmed sources were written by the creator(s) or op-eds. The most decent source, The North Star doesn't appear to meet the caliber of editorial oversight in my opinion that we would require for a source to establish notability (see this about us) I think that this is just far too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The Philadelphia Inquirer piece gives significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Women in Economics podcast series from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is also independent and can be used as a reliable secondary source for establishing notability--the podcast is moderated by Federal Reserve Bank employee Maria Hasenstab (the Federal Reserve Banks don't do paid advertisements).
Yes, the organization is quite young, but it has attracted quite a lot of attention already. I am a professional economist who has never met any of the people mentioned in these articles, but I have been hearing about their work. It seems every article that mentions economists' concerns about the lack of Black women entering the field gives a passing mention to the Sadie Collective. For examples, see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/economy/federal-reserve-diversity-hiring.html, https://www.wsj.com/articles/economics-profession-turns-attention-to-its-race-problem-11577974899, and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/business/economy/economics-race-gender.html--EAWH (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- passing mention, a single sentence where the founder is quoted, no comment on wsj as it's behind a paywall. Podcasts are going to be primary as it's usually appearances by it's founder and not independent. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I said those articles gave passing mentions to the Sadie Collective. As for the podcast, please see WP:INTERVIEW: "material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also I think you're confusing coverage of Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander with this organization. this is primarily about her, not Sadie Collective outside of mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Philadelphia Inquirer "mentions" The Sadie Collective throughout the article... so it's more than mentioned. It's covered. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The headline, "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective," and multiple paragraphs about the organization make this much more than a passing mention of the Sadie Collective!--EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I've had one of my edits reverted when I addressed concerns about sourcing by adding a good source. The target was moved from sourcing to relevancy. It's one thing to neuter the article of anything resembling promotion, but does not have to read in short, S/V/O sentences like a gradeschool primer. And most importantly, the relevant less than a sentence added won't affect the outcome of the deletion discussion. I have added the info again and I am going to work on this article. Let's add some discussion to this AfD edit battle. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- DiamondRemley39 your comments about this being an "edit battle" are pretty inflammatory and not at all what this is about, so I'd suggest redacting that. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's an observation. My constructive edits have been reverted twice, and there's been other edit back and forth outside of my involvement. I only suggest discourse and contribution are welcome as well as appropriate here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- DiamondRemley39 your comments about this being an "edit battle" are pretty inflammatory and not at all what this is about, so I'd suggest redacting that. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, the depth and reliability of the sources is lacking. Although this article is pretty in-depth, it doesn't qualify notability standards on its own.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
DeleteThis is quite a new organization, however, beyond the long article in the Philadelphia paper, all that I can find by searching are a few mentions and a few quotations from the Collective's staff. It sounds like a wonderful organization, but we are not supposed to keep articles because we like the goals of the organization being profiled. We are supposed to follow the guidelines about sources.IceFishing (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Possible source. The Chronicle of Higher Ed has an article that may cover the organization, but I do not have access and ILL may take a little time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Ima go with "keep" because I find more decent news sources for this than for the average anime or YouTuber article--there's a NYT article as well, which I don't have access to--"How the Fed is trying to fix its white male problem". Drmies (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mere mentions in the New York Times carry no more weight than mere mentions in the Podunk Gazette. The Times article is a detailed examination of efforts by the Fed to recruit female economists. One Fed economist told the times that "She has become involved with the Sadie Collective, a new initiative meant to support black women in economics." IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ahem. No. A mere mention in the NYT means a hell of a lot more than a half a page in the Podunk Gazette, IceFishing. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Even if it had run in the Daily Planet, it would still be a mention, not significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- IceFishing, I assume now that you agree that not all "mentions" are the same. So, now that we have established that there are more and less significant publications and thus more and less significant "mentions", I think we can agree that "mentions", and some of these are much more than that as is argued elsewhere in this AfD, in fact can add to notability if they are in significant publications. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Even if it had run in the Daily Planet, it would still be a mention, not significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ahem. No. A mere mention in the NYT means a hell of a lot more than a half a page in the Podunk Gazette, IceFishing. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mere mentions in the New York Times carry no more weight than mere mentions in the Podunk Gazette. The Times article is a detailed examination of efforts by the Fed to recruit female economists. One Fed economist told the times that "She has become involved with the Sadie Collective, a new initiative meant to support black women in economics." IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete as this appears to be a case of too soon. The organization has received quite a bit of attention for addressing a need within the education and economics communities, which is a good thing. Perhaps in due time new sources that convey the organization's impact will make a better case for notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes notability guidelines and I'm going to also invoke WP:BASIC on some sources. They also hosted the first conference for Black economists in the United States which got plenty of coverage. Sources include:
- "Inside the Conference for Black Women Economists" from Ms.
- "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective" from The Philadelphia Inquirer
- "‘It Was a Mistake for Me to Choose This Field’: A Survey Lays Bare the Experiences of Black Women in Economics" from The Chronicle for Higher Education
- "Deep Rooted Structural ‘Violence’ Keeps Black Women Out of Economics" from Forbes (in the article)
- "Unsung Economists #1: Sadie Alexander" from NPR
- "U.S. Fed Governor Brainard Talks On 'Increasing Participation' Of Black Women In Economics" from Forbes
- "FIGHTING UNDERREPRESENTATION IN THE PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSION" from Columbia University
- Appearance on Hidden Truths with Lisa D. Cook
- "How the Fed Is Trying to Fix Its White Male Problem" from The New York Times
- "Economics needs to do more than attract women to solve its gender problem" from Quartz
- "Making the Case for More Black Women in Economics" from Mathematica at Princeton University
- "Economics Profession Turns Attention to its ‘Race Problem’" from The Wall Street Journal
- "Why We Need More Black Women In Economics" The North Star (in article)
- "Women in Economics: Anna Opoku-Agyeman and Fanta Traore" from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- "UMBC students Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman and Olusayo Adeleye co-create 1st U.S. conference for Black women economists" from UMBC News
- "Economists are discussing their lack of diversity" from The Economist
- "A Year After a #MeToo Reckoning, Economists Still Grapple With It" from The New York Times
- "Professions in economics need to dump sexism" from Citizens' Voice
- "Economics Needs to Dump the Sexism" from Bloomberg News
- Reading the article headlines is like reading about the lack of diversity and women in Wikipedia both as editors and content. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Missvain--I half-assed my keep a bit, and you went all out. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the articles in this list came right up when I ran a search. The reason I saw this as a delete is that I kept reading articles that merely name-check the Sadie Collective. Take the article above in theChronicle of Higher Education: "She knew the landscape and had co-founded the Sadie Collective, an organization dedicated to equipping and empowering black women in economics and related fields." This is not significant coverage. User:Missvain, since you have read all of these, could you please pull out the ones that have significant coverage? Thank you.IceFishing (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Icevishing is correct and you should take a look at those sources again as many are passing mentions, written by the founders, quotes from the founders or contributor pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see TWO sources that are enough to establish notability here: The Philadelphia Inquirer article, and the inclusion of a full episode on this organization in the St. Louis Fed podcast series.--EAWH (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at all of them, Praxidicae, but I looked at a couple. The Economist article, one can say that's little more tha just a namecheck--"Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, a co-founder of the Sadie Collective, an initiative to boost the representation of black women within economics, said..." But the Quartz article offers this, "Anna Opoku-Agyeman, who graduated in May from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and is aspiring to a PhD in economics, has worked hard to create a space for women like her. She set up the Sadie Collective, named after Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander, the first African American woman to get a PhD in economics in the US in 1921. Opoku-Agyeman, who recently turned 23, co-organized a conference in Washington, DC in February, specifically designed to highlight black women economists, and encourage more to join the field." And that is not nothing, it's not trivial. Yes, I'd like more in-depth coverage, but what we have here is a LOT of hits, not all of which mere mentions or name checks. One could argue, BTW, that all these sources provide plenty of material to write up Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (I just created the redirect, because there's enough hits to warrant it). Sure some of these are all-too short and thus not very helpful, but there comes a moment when there is a preponderance of hits, even though some of them fairly light, that add up to notability. I think we're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm the editor who moved the draft into mainspace. I'm surprised this article is so contentious as IMO there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the organisation in sufficient detail to show notability. I'm concerned that there's an element of unconscious bias operating against it as it's an article about Black women. MurielMary (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Funny enough, the last article I hustled to save from AfD (Midori) was saved probably because of WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- MurielMary, I really want to think you are wrong, but who knows. I'm not going to cast stones here, and I think Praxidicae is fair in their dealings, but I can't speak for anyone here except for myself: I am working to recognize and overcome my biases. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- comment Missvain and drmies I'm not sure that when you made this list you did any critical evaluation of the sources or read them thoroughly. As an example, this is a forbes contributor piece and so is this. This is an NPR transcript that talks about Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander who is simply the namesake and has nothing to do with the subject aside from the name and inspiration. We already know she is notable. The rest of that transcript is an interview with it's founder(s). this is about their CFO, mostly based on an interview and written by a student. This is a transcript of an interview by the founder(s). I've already disputed several of the other sources for good reason, so not going to rehash that. I'm afraid that this significantly misses the mark on being independent coverage and would request that anyone reading this actually take it into account. And to say that a student published paper from their alma-mater is independent coverage is grasping at straws. We don't lower the bar of notability just because an organization is doing necessary and meaningful work. I think this will become notable but we shouldn't be hosting articles in the hopes that they will become what we require. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I checked the article in The Economist listed above, another brief mention: "Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, a co-founder of the Sadie Collective, an initiative to boost the representation of black women within economics, said..."(stuff that is not about the Collective).IceFishing (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the burden here is on editors arguing keep. I will be happy to change my opinion if someone shows that there is significant coverage beyond the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to ask the editors dismissing the notability of the subject because so much of the media coverage has consisted of interviews with the founders to review WP:INTERVIEW: "material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." The founders of this organization were selected for a full length interview by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. That is not self-promotion--it is selection for promotion by the St. Louis Fed. Look at this series: https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/women-in-economics. Look how many of the other women interviewed have Wikipedia pages (I've written or contributed to Wikipedia pages for several of them, and so I believe this is a list of notable women in the Wikipedia sense of the word). The St. Louis Fed selected the founders of the Sadie Collective for their podcast on prominent women in economics. WP:INTERVIEW makes it clear that counts towards establishing notability.
- No, WP:INTERVIEW does not mean that it can substantiate notability in the absence of other independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:INTERVIEW explicitly states, "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." I think we've all agreed now that the Philadelphia Inquirer story is ONE independent reliable source with significant coverage. The St. Louis Fed interview ADDS A SECOND contribution towards establishing notability.--EAWH (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, it does not. There are 0 other independent sources. Contributing to the idea is not actually contributing to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment for reviewer Please consider using WP:BASIC to assist with establishing notability for inclusion and the following sources provide significant coverage: [10][11][12][13][14].. Please note, this organization, as I said above, created and host (annually) the ONLY economics conference for African American women in the world, that's pretty significant on its own (even though I know that does not automatically mean they should be included in Wikipedia, but it is historically significant in a field where 2% of Black women graduate with economics degrees[15]. The conference is also known as the Sadie T.M. Alexander Conference for Economics and Related Fields which I suggest gets redirected to a section in the Sadie Collective article. Also, regarding a comment in the nomination, The North Star (anti-slavery newspaper) is a reliable secondary source. The North Star was founded by Frederick Douglass in 1847 and in 2019, Shaun King relaunched the publication with the blessing of Douglass' family. (I am bias, I did donate to help re-launch the publication which focuses on social justice). I do think, given the fact that this AfD has triggered a lot of conversation, something generally unseen for organizations of this size and caliber, WP:BIAS could be something of concern here. That is a growing pain for Wikipedia, as it is for society as a whole. Thanks again for your consideration. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that WP has a bias problem but we are not here to right great wrongs. As far as the links you've provided, please see my earlier assessment of these sources on the talk page, user talk page, and several deleted drafts. Almost all of your new sources are not independent - they are interviews or mentions of Sadie Collective. And I'll highlight what I said already, it's just too soon for this article. I feel that they will eventually receive the required coverage, just not yet Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Missvain, Can you help us out here, with regard to the 5 references you bring as reliable, significant coverage?
- Everyone agrees that the Philadelphia Inquirer article is a reliable source.
- Mathematica hosted hits [16] the Sadie Collective conference, making it a PRIMARY source.
- Ms. (magazine). Do you or does anyone reading this know whether this [17] is an opinion column or a news story under the control of an editor?
- This [18] is yet another Sadie Collective conference, hence: PRIMARY
- The North Star [19] appears to be a website named after the old abolitionist newspaper. Can you explain why you regard it as a reliable source? IceFishing (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please read my comments above about The North Star. Did you listen to the Mathematica podcast? It's about the Sadie Collective and the conference. It is a secondary source. The Ms. piece is not an editorial or oped. It is a new story under control of the editor. I know the editor there, I can gladly reach out if you're desperate to confirm. Finally, review prior comments by other editors, the St. Louis Fed may "appear" a primary source but the Sadie Collective was featured by the Reserve Bank in their Women in Economics podcast. It was the first podcast in the country devoted to women in economics. The podcast is not a primary source. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The great puzzle here continues to be why this interesting Collective has not garnered significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating that a ton of times doesn't make it more true. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I am no longer going to participate in this conversation because it's making my blood boil, so no need to tag me in comments anymore. Nothing personal, I just can't devote hours of my life to defending one AfD and I'm feeling exhausted. I appreciate everyone's good faith efforts and I hope the AfD reviewer will examine all presented information and decide fairly - with explanation. Thanks again everyone. Missvain (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I shan't ping you, but thank you for your research, Miss vain. There are other Wikipedia adventures in store for me as well, so I too shall bow out. I hope one day The Sadie Collective receives attention for all it strives to be. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The Philadelphia Inquirer and Ms. items are independent and in-depth. I have no information about the editorial process at the North Star, but the author of the piece there is a writer who's been reviewed in the LA Review of Books [20] and in academic journals [21], so that item can't really be dismissed either. As far as interviews go, the content that a subject says about themselves ought to be treated as primary-source material, but being selected for an interview can indicate the "wider world" paying attention, and I believe that applies here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
*Keep those, together with the Quartz coverage found by Drmies, put it over the hurdle, imho.IceFishing (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Withdraw. Sources really are very thin.IceFishing (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established through substantial, independent coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer, Ms., and The North Star; additional mentions and coverage in NYT and WSJ etc. also validate the coverage found. I agree with Missvain above that the St. Louis Fed interview is also a secondary source per WP:INTERVIEW, which either way could be used to improve the article, whether it's deemed necessary to establish notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep -
BASICnotability is met as per the sources found that are noted above. Article could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC) - Comment: "WP:BASIC", mysteriously incorrectly cited twice, is about biographies, not organization articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep a notable group. Missvain located quite a few sources. Passes GNG and WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Hazaribagh Thana. Sandstein 20:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gojmohal Tannery High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG Daask (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails GNG. Happy to re-consider if non-English sources that establish notability exist. Missvain (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hazaribagh Thana, the administrative unit in which the school is located. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, found no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Listings in indiscriminate directories do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. So a stand alone article is not justified. There is no need for a merge because the school is already listed at the target article, and there is no additional reliably sourced information suitable for merging. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 14:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Run zindagi run (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 that falls short of FILM as no criterion is satisfied & generally the film has not been discussed in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – The film isn't released yet, but, I still can't find any coverage about it that establishes it's chance of having a Wikipedia article. Happy to support a soft delete so it can be recreated if it blows up at the box office. Missvain (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete a completely unsourced article, this could have been boldly draftified Celestina
The article statesRun Zindagi Run theatrically released in Madhya Pradesh on 31 January 2020. The film and trailer received mostly positive reviews, with praise for the performance of all actor as well as action sequences in the film.
(weasel words) Yet I couldnt find anything about it. Apparently Dinesh Parihar was writer, director, producer, music composer, and owner of "Dinesh Parihar Productions". On IMDB, all the cast and crew has only one credit to them, this film. Except for one actress, who is credited for "Alvin and the Chipmunks" under "visual effects", which I highly doubt to be true. A clear-cut vanity article. Also had to request for a rev-del for copy-vio. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- usernamekiran Ah in my experience the general problem with draftfying is they (not this editor though) keep objecting & would eventually move it back to mainspace regardless. Sigh.Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Hollyoaks characters (2002)#Cameron Clark. RL0919 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cameron Clark (Hollyoaks) (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)
Deprodded with a new source from a tabloid that he is similar to some real life person. Ugh. Still fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION, pure WP:PLOT with reception limited to one churnalism sentence from a tabloid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge - It would be acceptable to merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2002).Rain the 1 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2002)#Cameron Clark. The one paragraph of real-world info (which is actually good) still doesn't mean it qualifies as a WP:SPINOUT yet. – sgeureka t•c 23:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2002)#Cameron Clark per sgeureka. Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Natalie Lefevre (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 sections of this article that is sourced are the lead and Media. None of the sources are reliable. fuzzable.com, written by Kelly McFarland fails to distinguish between advertising and editorial. See for example https://fuzzable.com/feel-good-this-january-with-pukka-tea/. tyler-penske.people.msnbc.com is a fake news source. His profile pic is a stock photo.[22] The content is not by MSNBC but by kivodaily, which we have blacklisted. The bio on borderlesslive.com looks like it was supplied by Lefevre, not independent news. The article published by euronews.com is by the subject. Accesswire.com is not reliable, it issues press releases created by a PR firm. The most egregiously wrong claim is that "In 2018, she was chosen as The Editor's Pick of the Best New Influencers at MSNBC." This is false. She was "Our Editor’s Pick of the Best New Influencer" at kivodaily. Vexations (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I tried the "before" search. She gets mentions in some articles about society parties but is otherwise mentioned only as someone's girlfriend. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with the above. All coverage seems to be in tabloids. Not to mention the article is complete puffery and should have been CSDd months ago. PK650 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – I love love love my celebutants but she doesn't pass the bill. I learned she likes bikinis...fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The nominator has thoroughly analysed the sources in the article, and my searches turn up nothing better. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Equiceph (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)
D&D stub for a fictional creature that as usual fails WP:GNG/NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Ridiculously minor fictional creature. There is only a single, primary source being used here, and looking for additional sources pretty much turns up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. No comment on the general reliability of Dragon as a source, but the consensus clearly thinks it is not in this specific case. Yunshui 雲水 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Rules According to Ral: Chaos Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources indicating any notability were found in the 39 Google hits to be added to the sole review from "Dragon", which reviewed apparently everything they received.[23] Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Is the implication that Dragon is non-RS?Guinness323 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on available sources, or merge to Ral Partha Enterprises per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- BOZ, you always vote "keep based on available sources" without addressing the actual analysis of the sources in the nomination. This is rather disruptive. We have one source (which reviewed about everything) and a database listing, which clearly is not enough to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to address this idea that Dragon "reviewed about everything". First point, Dragon was a monthly journal that lasted 30 years (359 issues), so it's natural that with such a long lifespan, the number of games and sourcebooks they reviewed would be substantial. But there are hundreds of games and related sourcebooks published every year, far more than Dragon could possibly review, even if they had devoted three times the space to game reviews. Far from reviewing everything, their editors actually had to be fairly picky.Guinness323 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- BOZ, you always vote "keep based on available sources" without addressing the actual analysis of the sources in the nomination. This is rather disruptive. We have one source (which reviewed about everything) and a database listing, which clearly is not enough to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A number of new sources have been added. Guinness323 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete None of the new sources added are RS and do not establish notability. Nor does a single review on a magazine that seems to publish many; if there are more reviews in other publications, I can't find them. Valeince (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - As already mentioned above, none of the added citations are from reliable, secondary sources, so once again, the only valid coverage this minor game received was in Dragon. Which, as the only potentially valid source, is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Janet Wertman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All her books are self published, and one PW review isnt enough for notability as an author. As one would expect for self-published work, they are in almost no worldcat libraries (19 for v.1, 12 for v.2)
Given the self-published status, this could also be considered as entirely promotional DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There are other references to sources like The Hour (newspaper), Historical Novel Society, and for the record there is more than one PW review.IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Changed my position after DGG's response. I actually had no clue PW was a program for libraries.... Missvain (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't really consider her passing general notability guidelines. We have three reliable secondary sources, one from The Hour which interviews her as a subject matter expert, and two[28][29] book reviews for her self-published books. Everything else cited in the article is from primary or non-mainstream sources, and I couldn't find any other reliable secondary sources covering her to beef up the article more. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- both reviews are in PW, a source whose purpose in the world is to sell books to libraries. They didn't succeed with these two: Jabe is in only 19 libraries, Somerset in 12 , despite having been published over 3 years ago. I wondered at this, until I read to the bottom of each review and found that they had copied both of the reviews from "BookLife" via its OnlineBookClub.org. It is, to quote their site, "Over two million new books are released each year alone. Promoting your book online is like trying to whisper in a loud night club. It is NOT easy. You cannot promote your own book online simply by you the author saying it is good. You need endorsements from top sources. OnlineBookClub.org is a huge, popular website with a massive following. " So it's a blatantly unreliable source. The reference in the article from The Hour os a self-promotional interview with the author. The Historical Novel Society was established "in order to support writers of new historical fiction"
- in order to judge references, you have to first, actually read them , and second, see where their information comes from. Missvain, you're usually careful, so please look again. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete everything sources back to promotionalism. There are not reliable sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vishnu Bharath (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 of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & does not satisfy WP:NACTOR either. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON as subject debuted as an actor for the first time in 2019. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment— please check the Reference website he was an actor and i watched his movie. want more reference i will produce the links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamseba (talk • contribs)
- Delete too soon in career to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete What the nominator and John said. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: He may well be an up and coming actor, but I agree with the other editors—it's WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete (non-admin closure) Mattg82 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mohsen Afshani (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 of article falls short of WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- speedy delete g5 this is a partial hoax by Mehdikordian Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 13:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nirav Barot (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 of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG & does not seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO either. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Dear Wikipedia Admins, the subject is not only musician, he is also writer and movie director for some notable Indian movies, has received multiple awards. article is sourced and also linked to another wiki pages, so kindly keep it.☆★Sunil Butolia (✉✉) 04:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)sunilbutolia
Delete - Not enough reliable and neutral sources to establish notability. Most of these are promotional sources. Creator of the page has been banned for promotional articles. Coderzombie (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, paid-for spam whose creator, Sunilbutolia, is blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete article of non notable person, whose creator, Sunilbutolia, is now blocked for WP:UPE. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Patronage by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar does not provide notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) and since that is the only argument presented for retention, the consensus is to delete. Yunshui 雲水 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama (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 Organization Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete the subject fails notability criteria for organisations (NORG). For testing NORG, I applied the guidelines provided in WP:ORGCRIT (which in turn is a little stricter version of GNG). The subject also fails general notability criteria in broad terms. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Only passing mentions. Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep AISJU is a national-wide notable Islamic organisation headed by the current Grand Mufti of India. The current Grand Mufti is representing the organisation on Islamic Community of India. See the reliable sources on Google news results. Authordom (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- notability is not inherited. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Samastha (EK faction) (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 of article is a non notable organization Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the faction is not independently notable it should be redirected to Samastha. ~ GB fan 00:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Only passing mentions. Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete the subject fails notability criteria for organisations (NORG). For testing NORG, I applied the guidelines provided in WP:ORGCRIT (which in turn is a little stricter version of GNG). The subject also fails general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Samastha (AP faction) (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 of article is a non notable Organization Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the faction is not independently notable it should be redirected to Samastha. ~ GB fan 00:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – Struggling to find sources here. Happy to re-consider if non-English sources are presented. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Ignoring the nom's duplicate delete vote, and generally per usernamekiran's analysis of the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kerala State Sunni Students' Federation (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)
Failed WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 11:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a un-notable local committee and failed to prove WP:GNG of WP:ORG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 07:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Don't vote on self-nominated discussion. Authordom (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – I could only find passing mentions outside of one source that talks about a protest they supported that is already cited in the article. Missvain (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge Internal State-wise committee articles have no stand-alone notability. Should be merged into the main article of Sunni Students' Federation.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The Kerala state committee of the Sunni Students'Federation is the first and major part of the organisation. Seems passes WP:GNG. Authordom (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- delete the subject fails notability criteria for organisations (NORG). For testing NORG, I applied the guidelines provided in WP:ORGCRIT (which in turn is a little stricter version of GNG). The subject also fails general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 13:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Paramount College of Natural Medicine (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 former educational institution that created their own article. Australia has hundreds of these private providers that are basically just shopfront "schools" that virtually never receive any media attention and tend to be a bit fly-by-night (I lived near a health college operating out of a smash repairer once.) The only reliable secondary source I could find on its existence was one story about taxpayers subsidising pseudoscience, but otherwise it's so bereft that I can't even find proof of when it closed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the user name and edits are a dead give away. all the links are now dead, and it is likely it has closed down... or perhaps has morphed into a different format. JarrahTree 12:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like an advert and not notable. Its telling that all the sources are dead links. Even to their main site. There's nothing notable on the web that I could find about them either. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I am tempted, however, to !vote redirect to an as yet to be developed very long list of failed tertiary "colleges" in Australia. I could find nothing to indicate notability. Of very mild passing interest might be [30] and [31]. Aoziwe (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be keen for that long list if someone were to actually do it, for what it's worth! The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Drovers and Aoziwe that a list of colleges that have existed is a good idea JarrahTree 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Draft:Media synthesis (AI). The article has been moved to the draft space. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Media synthesis (AI) (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)
A NEOLOGISM grouping a number of concepts that does not appear in multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to satisfy GNG. The only source that I see that uses the term "media synthesis" is a blog post written by the author of the article. In fact, the only search hits appear to be posts by the author. To me, this fails NOTESSAY.
The article is severely-BOMBARDed by sources that are only relevant to the topic because the article claims so. In other words, it is SYNTHesis of sources grouping various concepts under the label, even though none of the sources for those concepts deliberately use the term "media synthesis". As it appears, it's an invented concept by the author (and likely falls under WP:CSD#A11).
The author also created Category:Media synthesis. They also appear to have gone through other articles and added mentions of the term and category (e.g. [32]), none sourced as far as I can see. This has gone a little beyond WP:BRD and brings up FAITACCOMPLI issues. However, the resolution of this AfD should hopefully also resolve whether category or these other mentions are suitable (I do not believe they are, but I rather not revert en masse).
The article was moved out of draft space, so not re-incubating it. (The author did not resubmit the draft, so there was no chance to review it.) I assume CSD/PROD would be contested (especially since there are so many sources at a glance), so going with full AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The primary issue with the Media Synthesis article is that I did indeed create the current term before a more widely used and very highly similar term, "synthetic media", was coined. If you may, I'll provide at least 50+ links to articles (including official government documents) that use this term and even define it much the same way. Most notable is the Congressional Deepfake Report Act. My primary reasoning for using the term "media synthesis" was more due to grammatical rules. If it is more prudent to rename this article "Synthetic Media (AI)", it very well should and ought to be done.
As the page is still largely under construction, a number of these sources are to be added as time goes on and the article is further cleaned up.
In regards to moving the page from draft to mainspace, I've been told multiple times by others that this is something available to a user who is autoconfirmed, that I need not wait for administrative approval if the article is already complete. If this is the wrong move, please correct me. I did indeed resubmit the draft, at least over a month ago, and had been patiently waiting for its approval. It was only recently when I was (perhaps erroneously?) informed that I need not wait in the first place if I was not an anonymous user.
Rather than deletion, my personal final verdict is to rename Media Synthesis (AI) to Synthetic Media (AI) and add the proper sources to justify the name. --Yuli Ban (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
In regards to further instances of the usage of "synthetic media", I'll simply post ten links just to not clutter up the page. Hopefully this re-establishes the argument towards renaming the article:
- Witness Media Lab
- New Yorker
- CMS Wire
- Genetic Literacy Project
- Washington Post
- Forbes
- Medium, as part of the Wall Street Journal
- Fast Company
- The Hill
- Google AI Blog
All of these articles both mention the term "synthetic media" as well as define it in some capacity, with the most basic being "AI-generated media" (hence the alternate titles for the article). They also refer to "synthetic media" as having multiple branches, of which the likes of deepfakes and human image synthesis are individual branches. Thus, it can be ascertained that at least most of the central argument of the Media Synthesis (AI) page is still applicable.
Also, my reasoning for using multiple tangentially-related sources derives from the central reasoning that "media synthesis" refers to a family of processes of applied computational creativity and algorithmic generation; therefore, image synthesis and procedural generation alike qualify.[2] --Yuli Ban (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ D'Anastasio, Cecilia (October 19, 2017). "Dungeons & Dragons Stumbles With Its Revision Of The Game's Major Black Culture". Kotaku. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
- ^ https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00881
- If you want to draft or create an article Synthetic media using sources that actually use the term and stay within their scope, then that's a different subject and scope. I scanned through these and the best I can see is that they are talking about "field of deepfakes, or “synthetic media”". But you have equated this "Media synthesis" with all the subjects -- synthetic media/deepfakes, AI-generated content, procedural generation, speech synthesis, etc. And the source for this grouping is a blog post you wrote yourself. That's WP:OR and not acceptable. Gathering sources to surround a topic with related topics based on such grouping is thus equally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A few more points of contention:
1: Synthetic media is media synthesis. As mentioned, I created the latter term a good bit of time before the former became widely used. Both refer to the exact same thing. In fact, when I first created the term "media synthesis," calling it "synthetic media" was one of my options, but I decided against it due to it being a noun adjunct. Now I see that "synthetic media" is the more widely used term anyway.
2: Synthetic media is not perfectly synonymous with deepfakes. To use even more sources, it describes everything you've mentioned as an unbrella term for all these different sources. This is how it is usually used: separately from deepfakes, often placed over it to describe a family of different but related techniques (including speech synthesis, natural language generation, music synthesis, etc.)
See more:
- Media Post's article "What is Synthetic Media?"
- Psychology Today, using synthetic media to describe artificial humans & speech
- Securing Democracy's definition of synthetic media (Including this helpful quote: "Experts generally prefer the more general term synthetic media, which refers to the generation or manipulation of media—video, audio, imagery, and potentially text—that would have been difficult and expensive to create prior to recent technological advances. This relies primarily, but not exclusively, on artificial intelligence.")
My final assertation remains: Media Synthesis (AI) can be moved directly to Synthetic Media (AI) with added sources, but should not be deleted or greatly culled. Yuli Ban (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I do thank you for your assistance, however. All I really wanted this entire time was added help in clarifying the fundamental concepts and finding any flaws, holes, or poorly-expanded research, especially to assist in establishing a clearer centralized terminology for all related technologies deemed "synthetic media." This entire time, I worried that the lack of usage of "media synthesis" in the sources would prove to be a problem right up until I discovered that "synthetic media" was used in increasing amounts. By that time, however, the original article was already mostly complete. To expand upon my reasoning, the intention was that references to sub-branches of synthetic media (e.g. speech synthesis, natural-language generation, procedural generation, human-image synthesis, etc.) were enough to be used. Of course, now I see that there is a rule against synthesized sources. That the term "media synthesis" was my own and I was the primary source for it was also a worry when originally drafting the article last year, and in fact was the reason why it was not drafted sooner: the intention was to write it as early as the fall of 2018, but I feared self-authorship would lead to deletion. It was only when constant efforts to get others to take the initiative failed to materialize anything tangible that I decided to act. As a result, I've had very few to no other persons actually helping me prune or refine details. Considering the subject matter, urgency of the debate, short and long-term implications, and rapid development of the technology, it would be very unfortunate for the article to be outright deleted, especially since the primary issue is entirely the name of the article itself and that rectifying it (plus adding the proper sources for the terminology) would clear it of any further issues. Indeed, perhaps the #1 reason for the article's creation was to help raise awareness for this burgeoning field of technology (which is why it was soon turned into a category, with another intention being to use it as a basis for navboxes and portals in the future).
Yuli Ban (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I am trying to understand reasons for deletion here. We have Deepfake as an article, and synthetic media appears notable - although I have not yet checked the reliability of all sources. Nevertheless it is a widely used term and I think is almost certainly notable. My question is whether Deepfake and Media synthesis (AI) are sufficiently differentiated for two articles. What is the argument for there being both? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: I'll be honest that I am now more confused after author's explanation than I was before nominating. But here's what I think I understand. "Media synthesis" is a term the author created (they say as much above and the only source to support the term is their own blog post). It fails GNG. "Synthetic media" is an actual term used by sources -- a similar but less encompassing topic. It might pass GNG. (The terms happen to sound very similar, so it's confusing at a glance.) The author wanted to promote their term "media synthesis" as a broader concept and wrote the whole article that way, collecting a lot of related (but with unsourced connection) concepts along the way. The article's intro "also known as" is based on author's own blog post. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, agreed about the explanation, but I don't think he has wholly created that term. It is used in this article and indeed in this paper just as a couple of instances. It is not entirely his invention (or if it is, then it is an invention of his that some others are using). Yet you are correct that "synthetic media" is the more common term. I just did a "google poll" using each search term, coupled with "deepfake" (to weed out a lot of pages using the term in different contexts). Media Synthesis only had 1,950 hits and synthetic media had 49,500. So it is clear which term has wider usage in the context. Yet that only tells us something about what the page title should be. To qualify for deletion, this has to fail GNG. I don't think it fails GNG as a concept.
- @Sirfurboy: I'll be honest that I am now more confused after author's explanation than I was before nominating. But here's what I think I understand. "Media synthesis" is a term the author created (they say as much above and the only source to support the term is their own blog post). It fails GNG. "Synthetic media" is an actual term used by sources -- a similar but less encompassing topic. It might pass GNG. (The terms happen to sound very similar, so it's confusing at a glance.) The author wanted to promote their term "media synthesis" as a broader concept and wrote the whole article that way, collecting a lot of related (but with unsourced connection) concepts along the way. The article's intro "also known as" is based on author's own blog post. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The other reason I would go with deletion and redirect, however, is if there were no difference between the intended scope of this article and the Deepfake article. As deepfake is just a popular name for synthetic media, it is not clear to me that this article is required. Redirect to deepfake would appear to make more sense (or even rename Deepfake to Synthetic Media and leave in a redirect from there). I think it is for the author to explain (succinctly please) how the scope of this article is not entirely encompassed by Deepfake. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The nomination is for the topic "media synthesis" (and I think those two mentions are coincidental and not trying to coin or use an established term). I agree that "synthetic media" may be notable. But I don't agree that this article can be renamed and fixed without a WP:TNT. There is nothing in this article directly supporting what synthetic media is. To me, all content is just author's OR and SYNTH of tangential sources. Lead doesn't support it. "Media" doesn't even mention it. "History" just discusses content generation. "Branches" has no main sources and just starts listing fields. And so it goes on mentioning individual fields, but never actually citing sources that conclusively say that "field X is part of synthetic media and here are some facts about it". The whole article is akin to a (decently-written) academic essay, but the opposite of the OR principles of Wikipedia. Anyway, that's how I see it. I'm expressing it very diplomatically, but I honestly don't think it even passes CSD#A11. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, but deletion is not cleanup. Although maybe WP:TNT is required. To come to a view on that I am going to have to sit down and read the whole article properly, so I won't come back on this until tomorrow now. In the meantime, I will be interested on the author's comments regarding overlap with deepfake. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The nomination is for the topic "media synthesis" (and I think those two mentions are coincidental and not trying to coin or use an established term). I agree that "synthetic media" may be notable. But I don't agree that this article can be renamed and fixed without a WP:TNT. There is nothing in this article directly supporting what synthetic media is. To me, all content is just author's OR and SYNTH of tangential sources. Lead doesn't support it. "Media" doesn't even mention it. "History" just discusses content generation. "Branches" has no main sources and just starts listing fields. And so it goes on mentioning individual fields, but never actually citing sources that conclusively say that "field X is part of synthetic media and here are some facts about it". The whole article is akin to a (decently-written) academic essay, but the opposite of the OR principles of Wikipedia. Anyway, that's how I see it. I'm expressing it very diplomatically, but I honestly don't think it even passes CSD#A11. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The other reason I would go with deletion and redirect, however, is if there were no difference between the intended scope of this article and the Deepfake article. As deepfake is just a popular name for synthetic media, it is not clear to me that this article is required. Redirect to deepfake would appear to make more sense (or even rename Deepfake to Synthetic Media and leave in a redirect from there). I think it is for the author to explain (succinctly please) how the scope of this article is not entirely encompassed by Deepfake. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Author here: The fundamental issue is that "deepfake" in its current form describes a method of face-to-face style transfer, which is indeed a kind of synthetic media, but doesn't describe the full gamut of synthetic media itself. Think of it as being similar to the difference between subgenres of hard rock music, and how "death metal" is a kind of hard rock but wouldn't accurately suffice to describe the entirety of hard rock music. Or, perhaps more on topic, how "machine learning" describes a subfield of artificial intelligence but would not be sufficient to describe the entirety of the AI field. In terms of scientific research and data science, "deepfakes" does not refer to all sorts of algorithmic media generation. Even colloquially, it is only used as a source of comparison (i.e. "the deepfakes of [X]" or "deepfakes for [X]"), which implies that deepfakes is being used more to patch for a lack of a central terminology. There has also been some developments in making deepfakes work for voices. Thus, deepfakes describes swapping between two media, principally video and audio.
Synthetic media, thusly, is the parent "catch-all" term and principally refers to any sort of applied usage of AI-generated data/media. This means it includes deepfakes, but also things unrelated to deepfakes (such as text synthesis, music generation, speech synthesis, etc.) Since "deepfakes" is used predominantly to describe face-swapping, using it interchangeably with synthetic media tends to cause too much confusion, hence why publications often point out that deepfakes are merely a kind of synthetic media or that deepfakes is "the most prominent form of synthetic media. This implies that there is more to synthetic media than just deepfakes. Indeed, they will usually reiterate what I have said: synthetic media refers to any "AI-generated, enhanced, or manipulated media or data." It is often mentioned that this goes for video, image, text, and voice; the implication is that any media whatsoever can be generated. "Synthetic media" encompasses the same scope as "media synthesis," perhaps losing Procedural generation only due to a lack of sources currently combining the terms.
There are some more papers and articles that go a bit more in-depth. If the article remains (but is renamed), Synthetic media (AI) would become the basis for a navbox, and Deepfake would be a link within in a "Video" or "Image" cell, separate from something like Pop music automation and natural language generation.
Or to use an active example, my voice and face being swapped for Sirfurboy's for use by HELLKNOWZ is a deepfake. This, as well as Sirfurboy generating a new, novel face via human-image synthesis and then generating a short story to go along with it via OpenAI's GPT-2 transformer, would all qualify as "synthetic media." This new person who does not exist could then be made to sing via MIDI files or waveform manipulation (set to an AI-generated song), and this quasi-music video could be made interactive if a neural network generated video game assets and the proper coding instructions (not unlike NVIDIA's work here). All of such, too, is synthetic media. Swapping the AI-generated person for another AI-generated person via autoencoding methods, however, would qualify as a deepfake. Generating a new person would not be considered a deepfake in technical terms, but might be referred to it in the media by some publications. Or it would be compared to deepfakes, but formally considered something different.
At this point, it seems the primary issue at hand is more whether to rename the article to Synthetic Media; we've all established well that the term does exist, and I have been trying to explain why it is not synonymous with deepfakes. I'm fully in support of doing this and editing all the outgoing links & category page.
Yuli Ban (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is original research. You keep describing things using words like "thusly" and "hence" and "implies". That is not how Wikipedia works. You have to show sources that directly say those things. Sources that say things like "Deepfake is a field of synthetic media". Not blog posts by unknown authors with no editorial oversight. Not churnalism tangential articles that don't define their terms. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Don't misunderstand me; I see exactly what you're saying. My point is that the fundamental problem comes down to the name of the article itself; if it were renamed, I'd be able to fix the majority of the problems. There are plenty of articles that state almost exactly or some variation of "deepfake is a field/type/branch of synthetic media," and similarly for image synthesis, speech synthesis, audio synthesis, natural-language generation, and video synthesis. Synthetic media as a term is either referenced or defined in many of them, and the definition invariably comes down to a fuzziness that starts with "AI/algorithmically-generated media/data" or "automated art." I chose to use "AI-generated media" as a direct synonym to "synthetic media" since they are almost always used in the same article or paper to refer to the same thing.
- With "media synthesis," there are vastly fewer references to or definitions of this, even though it's the exact same concept with the words swapped. And because I had been unaware of the prevalence of "synthetic media" as a term describing this field of technology before very recently (as most searches came up with the biological meaning), I wound up having to infer the relationship between the many subfields to have a fully-established article. This + overzealousness on the topic led to it becoming largely original research. — Yuli Ban (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I've decided to go ahead and begin work on Synthetic Media (AI) as a replacement article, reworking most aspects from the ground up to better tie everything directly to "synthetic media." Since I've saved/downloaded the page, media synthesis can be nuked. There are thus only three hang-ups:
1) Synonyms. "Synthetic media" and "AI-generated media" are perfectly synonymous (the definition of synthetic media is that of autonomous algorithmic generation of data/media), so the question here would be whether or not a report and paper on "AI-generated media" that nevertheless does not contain the term "synthetic media" would qualify as a suitable source. It seems obvious and uncontroversial to me that this would be the case, especially since the term was largely unused by the media before 2019, but the exact same principle was described via "AI-generated [i.e. synthetic] media". This is likely the only instance where I'll see any feedback from others and would like some alternative input. This would greatly ease finding sources, but it's also a very fuzzy area that really comes down only to the minutia of language. No source I've found, from blogs to scientific papers to government documents, lists any separation between "AI-generated media" and "synthetic media" and indeed often very explicitly state the latter is the former.
2) Applications, concerns, and impacts. Admittedly, this could use culling to remove some of the more personal takes on long-term implications to keep it purely down to the facts, but a primary issue with all of these is that, since they all describe sub-branches of synthetic media even as defined by many other outlets, at least some ought to remain.
3) Existence as a category. Seeing as synthetic media is supposed to describe a very wide range of different technologies (and as the term becomes more prominent, it will almost certainly be used by articles, papers, and documents to describe whatever currently "doesn't fit" the term as per this page's discussion thus far, so the article will eventually refill to the same level as the previous one), its existence as a category seems obvious to me, but again, I'd like alternative takes before making a decision.Yuli Ban (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify - It is clear this is not ready for mainspace despite a good deal of effort by the creator. In draft it can also be renamed to Synthetic Media (AI), and reworked to remove the OR and focus the page more on the subject. The history is a history of AI rather than the subject and the whole page could be focused much better, although the lead summary does define it as a subject that is notable and broader than the existing Deepfake page. There is no reason for deletion per se, except WP:TNT, and sending to draft will allow the creator to work on it based on comments here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also, just to add, per the nomination, this was moved out of draft without review. Will the creator agree to submitting to review before moving out of draft in future? If not, then my view would change to delete, under WP:TNT. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify - I've read over this page and the article being discussed. Seeing the various sources which Yuli linked earlier (those which use synthetic media as a term), I think it's definitely justifiable to have a wikipedia article about the subject. However, I've also noticed that the sources which Yuli linked earlier aren't actually used within the wikipedia article itself, and the article instead uses various sources that are related to, but don't explicitly mention, synthetic media. I also want to note how the page was moved into the mainspace without being approved by a reviewer, which in and of itself justifies making the page a draft again. While I see the point in having a page on the subject, the one which Yuli has moved into the mainspace has real problems and needs work to be done on it. Apathetizer (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sandeep Thakur (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 person seems to lack notability or the way the article is written and the references don't support the notability, with numbers of those references just being junk references. It seems that one author is trying hard to generate notability where none exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do not Delete The artist is genuine and is covered in various media and in the movie IMDb where his work has been clearly mentioned. By deleting it would mean that it was a fake account which isnt true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priya2017 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do not Delete The artist is covered by various media you can verify. You can suggest edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.241.76 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I could only find mere mentions about the subject, including in the links provided in the article itself. Appears it might be WP:TOOSOON for the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missvain (talk • contribs)
- Delete Not seeing anything in the article or elsewhere that might amount to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Claim-Jumper: The Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One shortish review in a niche magazine which reviewed apparently everything remotely connected to RPGs, and the website of the company behind this game. And that's it. Looking for the article title only gives 5 results, as this doesn't seem to be the actual name of the game: 4 hits are enwiki or mirrors, and one is unrelated[33]. Broadening the search a bit gives 75 hits[34], but the vast majority are again not about this game, and the others don't give any additional notability. No obvious redirect target, so deletion it is. Fram (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - There is only one secondary source and one primary source being used, which is insufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Searching for sources only bring up a handful of results, which all appear to simply be mirrors of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seems like the consensus is that while others have written about the topic, these writings do not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blue LoLãn (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)
Proposal fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NCREATIVE - in that it doesn't demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Noting that IMDb, Discogs and the individual's website are not acceptable, reliable or independent sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a search failed to find any RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do not Delete The subject has been written about in multiple printed sources as well as Huffington Post article.György Tibor (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- In that case you should add them to the article!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – The Huff Po article is a mention about her work with animals. The Uniqlo link is a passing mention. I was unable to find anything that would help her pass GNG at this time. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails notability criteria for NARTIST and GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Mekton. Up to editors whether to merge any sourceable content. Sandstein 20:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mecha Manual 2: Invasion Terra Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. The Prod for this article was removed when a second source was added, but this source, "Le Grog", looks to me like a semi-wiki (anyone can become a contributor, but needs approval, not just direct editing like a true wiki), and is a completist website, not a reliable, distinctive source. This looks to me comparable to, say, IMDb (or Discogs or Boardgamegeek or Findagrave), which is a very interesting and useful website, but where inclusion gives no notability at all, as it is a site aiming to be complete, not a site discussing only the important, impactful, exceptional, ... elements.
There are no GBook hits of any essence about this book, only mentions in lists of all books, and there are only 72 Google hits in total, which is not a lot for such geeky stuff which is normally well represented online.[35] Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per available sources, or merge review to Mekton per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not only are there the issues of that "Le Grog" source being potentially unreliable, it is nothing but a database showing the basic information for the product, not any kind of review or discussion. So, there is only the one review in a niche publication. Searching for additional sources turned up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge to Mekton#Editions_of_Mekton. At least the Future Publishing reference indicates this passes WP:V and as such we should WP:PRESERVE. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Can't close as keep, because no one has shown at least two definitive, independent, in-depth sources that aren't strictly local coverage. Can't close as delete, because no analysis has taken place regarding the added sources. Can't re-list. No consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ocean Medical Center (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:NORG. Attempted redirect was reverted by page creator. buidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. buidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. buidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I do not believe that this page fails notability. It is a major medical center in the ocean county area. An admin already made comments in the talk page about how the article is not perfect but it can stay on Wikipedia and improvements can be made. I had this whole discussion already. Just look on the talk page. Andrew nyr (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, Deepfriedokra said "it does not meet WP:CORP, so deletionist that I am, I'd be inclined to delete." buidhe 03:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply I deferred acting on the WP:G11 tag (i.e., unambiguously promotional. These are phrases of art, and different admins may view ambiguity differently.) as I was unsure that was reasonable, and ExpressoAddict declined. However, I doubt the subject meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. I just undid the redirect, as that is premature if the AfD running. If the consensus is that it is salvageable or could be salvageable, draftification would be reasonable.-- Deepfriedokra 07:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A cursory Wikipedia:BEFORE reveals up some RS, making this nomination suspect, since it appears one one carried out. Additionally a newly created article should be given the chance for others to see and make contributions, not be AfD on same day. This topic is of merit and can be easily expanded.Djflem (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please link to the RS. Just WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a convincing rationale. I did find some coverage, but WP:ROUTINE applied. buidhe 01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — voicing Buidhe. furthermore this is a promotional piece for a non-notable hospital a google search doesn’t show in-depth significant coverage of the said hospital. Fails WP:NORG ultimately. Am I the only one noticing that generally admins are starting to avoid the speedy delete button? In the past the article might have been speedy deleted under G11. Celestina007 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It's a 300 bed hospital. Those are large, both physically and financially. Unsurprisingly, they leave a large footprint. I would be amazed if such an organisation could easily hide itself from our gaze. And looking for sources, there they are.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The sources already here and those identified and available to be added establish the hospital's notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lets do an actual analysis of sources. Numbering from this version.
Routine listing with the address
Listing by affiliated source
Hospital website
WP:ROUTINE, two-paragraph announcement of a merger
WP:ROUTINE, brief article in a local newspaper of dubious quality. No original reporting involved.
This might qualify towards establishing NCORP
Press release
No significant coverage, just a USNews listing
Passing mention of the hospital on a list of hospitals which treat LGBT patients well
Warmed over press release by leapfrog, announcing an award for this hospital but no significant coverage
Primary source, hospital employee submitted something to a government commission
There's just not enough here to make NCORP. buidhe 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Buidhe, many of the sources identified as available have been added to the article to address your concerns. The article was and remains notable. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty of sources provided to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Multiple users have added further sources to the article and I just do not believe that it fails notability. It is a new article and can be approved but the afd tag at the top scares potential editors. Only one user has consistently called for deletion and mutiple others have voted to keep the article. I believe that this article does not qualify for deletion. As djflem stated "Additionally a newly created article should be given the chance for others to see and make contributions, not be AfD on same day." This is just not fair to the wikipedia community. Andrew nyr (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what's "not fair to the Wikipedia community" is creating articles without having any evidence at hand that shows notability. All we have is an opinion of what's notable, leaving the hard work for others to try and prove it. Glendoremus (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The cited references consistently fail basic criteria for notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When I search the internet I fail to find anything better. Glendoremus (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reply Since the user above listed out the sources the article has been updated multiple times by different users adding sources and adding information to the article. Andrew nyr (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Sources seem be in line with GNG since Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I see over 14,000 newspaper.com hits, with clearly substantial coverage in print. BD2412 T 04:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Nobody seems to be citing WP:NHOSPITALS. It states "as an absolute minimum" the hospital "has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources", "at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth", and "at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area". Per my research, c. #1 and maybe #2 have been met. Not so sure about the third, however. I'll defer my !vote given I'm not an expert on hospitals. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have added some sources. The two local articles from The Ocean Star (a source not previously cited) are lengthy, and the third, while only a mention, is from Florida Today. BD2412 T 04:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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, noting that later !votes may be given more weight in a discussion where the article is further developed over the course of the discussion. BD2412 T 03:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anne Logston (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 subject fails the WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR. They do have published works, but none including the author were mentioned in independent reliable sources. Less Unless (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Soft Delete - The existence of book reviews does not automatically confer notability on the author. Waiting to see some SIGCOV. Rogermx (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete we do not have significant coverage of Logston.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NAUTHOR. No independent coverage, just book sales and niche sites. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Possible sources demonstrating significant coverage include:
- Kliatt, January, 1992, p. 18; September, 1993, p. 18; July, 1994, p. 16; May, 1995, p. 16; November, 1995, p. 17.
- Locus, August, 1991, pp. 27, 55; January, 1993, pp. 31; July, 1993, p. 50; April, 1994, p. 29; December, 1994, p. 29.
- Science Fiction Chronicle, June, 1992, p. 33.
- Voice of Youth Advocates, June, 1992, p. 111; August, 1994, p. 158. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Contemporary Authors and references suggest significant coverage of her career and works. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep – She's in the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy[36] and here are some other sources:
- "Book creates wonderful journey" from Daily Journal
- Entry in The A to Z of Fantasy Literature
- Missvain (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, i am swaying here, one point of WP:NAUTHOR requires reviews of their works and for them to be "significant or well-known", although there are plenty of reviews available from "good" sources (see ISFDB listing here) - click on individual titles and reviews are listed (there are reviews in addition to those mentioned by DiamondRemley39 above) - i note that 5 of the titles have 2 reviews listed that technically meet WP:NBOOK ie. multiple reviews, and depending on which books are reviewed in Kliatt, and VOYA mentioned above may mean that more of her books are wikinotable/articleworthy, a concern is that they may be deemed not well known ie. library holdings (acknowledging that the figures may not be uptodate) are in the low double figures (highest found: Dagger's Edge 34 libraries, Waterdance 27 libraries, Shadow 24 libraries), but with Logston being covered by Encyc Fantasy and A to Z Fant Lit i am feeling "keepish". Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good points, Coolabahapple. Have you considered the relatively short life shelf life of physical copies of books in libraries? Libraries weed for damage and age; OCLC holdings are updated when books are withdrawn from catalogs; older titles may only be reordered if requested by patrons and if still in print. Her library holdings numbers were most certainly quite a bit higher closer to the publication dates. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. ISFDB shows two published reviews for Guardian's Key, one for Exile, two for Dagger's Edge, two for Dagger's Point, two for Shadow, one for Shadow Dance, two for Greendaughter, one for Wild Blood, one for Firewalk, and one for Waterdance, for a total of 15 reviews of 10 of her books. That's plenty for WP:AUTHOR. They would have all been in print magazines in the 1990s, so not likely available online, but sources don't need to be online for them to demonstrate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bodhi Jones (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)
Musician who doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. He's released a few records and had local success but doesn't seem to have charted nationally, won awards etc. All the coverage I can find is social media, or local to the Vancouver area where he lives. This includes some pending legal cases which aren't in the article at the moment, but which wouldn't confer notability anyway. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep regional coverage is acceptable towards WP:GNG such as The Georgia Strait review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The Georgia Strait review seems to be the only legitimate source. Which isn't substantial enough coverage to make him notable IMO. Especially since its local and just an album review. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The Georgia Straight isn't nothing, granted, but it also isn't enough all by itself — even just passing WP:GNG requires more than just one acceptable source. All of the other five references here are dead links that (a) fail to even verify the content they're being cited to footnote anymore, (b) are the self-published primary source websites of radio stations and organizations mentioned in the article, so even when they were live they still weren't the kind of sources he needed to have. The notability claims being made here aren't strong ones, either: notability because sales requires a nationally charting single or album on an IFPI-certified national pop chart on the order of Billboard, not just selling a few thousand copies on the street as a busker; notability because airplay requires a national radio network, not just local radio stations or web streams. And precisely because the self-published playlogs on radio stations' websites eventually expire, even claiming notability on that basis still requires journalism to be done about the accomplishment, and not just technical verification of the playlist on the station's own website. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more than just one short album review in his local alt-weekly for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 14:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Beach road, Takoradi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Concerns at Teahouse raised. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 07:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 07:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The place doesn't even seem to be built yet. Even if it was though, a glorified apartment complex isn't notable IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. One, non-independent, source. Maproom (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No WP:INDEPENDENT sources for meeting the general notability guideline. Taewangkorea (talk)
- Comment, this does appear to be a suburb(?) of Sekondi-Takoradi, see gmaps here, also here is a News Ghana article that discusses water rationing and mentions Beach Road, so could be listed in a suburb section at Sekondi-Takoradi?. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW as it is already clear that there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 't Brouwerskolkje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Brouwerskolkje Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see nothing notable about this company. Its just a single closed restaurant. The page has been a stub since 2015 and reliant on the same probably not reliable source multiple times. So I suggest it be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A restaurant with two Michelin stars for multiple years is definitely notable. It would have been nice when the filer had used WP:BEFORE and respected Dutch language sources from one of the foremost publications about the hospitality sector in the Netherlands. The Banner talk 09:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Banner, I did look at the Dutch language sources. Thanks though. see Notability (organizations and companies) specifically Examples of trivial coverage "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists." Along with the product reviews section that reviews must "Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products." Neither of the Michelin Star sources have details of the restaurant and they are trivial without it. A star rating system on its own doesn't mean jack for notability. Especially without other wider notable coverage of the topic. The Dutch language article doesn't even have any more sources then the English one. Therefore, I stand by the lack of notability and continue my thinking the article should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notability does not vanish when a business closes. Having two Michelin stars is quite the feat; even one would make almost any restaurant notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Michelin starred restaurants, especially those with two, almost inevitably receive significant coverage in many reliable, independent sources. In order to be convinced that this closed restaurant is not notable, I would need to see a convincing analysis by an editor familiar with the full range of reliable sources covering Dutch restaurants explaining why this restaurant escaped coverage in reliable sources despite its Michelin stars. I am not holding my breath. I submit that the nominator's time would be better spent trying to improve the article rather than trying to delete it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is a book called The Kitchen as Laboratory: Reflections on the Science of Food and Cooking, published by Columbia University Press, that devotes significant coverage to this restaurant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notability from the reviews from internationally recognized bodies is an easy source of meeting GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Cullen's source and the Michelin stars - I can't think of a better definition of notability amongst restaurants than the phrase 'Michelin-starred'. GirthSummit (blether) 06:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Music therapy. Selectively, that is, of any material that turns out to be reliably sourced and is useful in the target article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Treatment of bereavement through music therapy (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)
Was this someone's essay once upon a time? It sticks out like a sore thumb. It is cited, but I'm not sure if it should be here at all. Raymie (t • c) 02:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge selectively to Music therapy. There appear to be plenty of refs for the topic but the article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Trouble is, without inline refs it’s hard to know which parts to merge. The editor who created this article never created anything else and isn’t around to help any more. I can see the case for deletion but would hate to lose material that is well sourced if we can avoid it. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with Music therapy per same reason as given above. It would a waste to lose the sources etc, but it doesn't warrant its own article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merivale (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is basically a list of largely non-notable hotels and restaurants with most of the cites about the company's owner rather than the company or its assets, propose redirecting to Justin Hemmes. Bromptop (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep Seems to not be that notable, but there are some articles out there about it. For instance here here and here having to do with a class action lawsuit by their employees. I'm not sure what's notable about the company besides that though or if it warrants an article or not. So, weak keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's a billion-dollar national hospitality business that was notable before its current family scion, Justin Hemmes was even conceived. It's much more thoroughly documented in reliable sources than your average large businesses because both Justin Hemmes now and his parents before that seem to attract media coverage whatever they do and have for decades. The current state of the article is crap but AfD is not cleanup (even for notable business empires) and I'd rather a trip to the dentist than to have to spend the day documenting 80 years of socialite hospitality business history to stop a notable topic on a subject I fundamentally don't care about getting whacked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable company, crap article. There is lots that could be added, starting from this obituary of its founder. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep There is no doubt that the company is notable. There are sustained and broad ranging sources going back decades, and in other languages too, eg dutch. My dilemma was should it be kept or WP:TNTed. Given the importance and profile of this company, I have decided on keep. (Why this has not been cleaned up a long time ago is puzzling.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone randomly redirected it to one of their venues some time ago (despite the fact we have articles on quite a few, it was a very strange redirect) and I undid it this week given their obvious notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong and snow keep - what is with the nomination of well-known Australian companies this week - does no one do any research on these things before nominating them? This one is so obvious that it goes without saying - a 2 second Google search would reveal it has significant notability. I'll assume good faith given the state of the article (noting that AfD is not cleanup, and noting that Drover's Wife recently undid an improper redirect) but this one really needed to be thought through more. Bookscale (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with all of above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Lots of passionate keep votes, yet little action in addressing the 'crap article' issue. Have rewritten in an attempt to deal with some of the issues and errors. Bromptop (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As the larger problems have been addressed, happy to change my vote to a keep. I believe I cannot withdraw an AfD nomination once made, but as it appears that the consensus will be to keep, probably won't influence the outcome anyway. Bromptop (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - thank you Bromptop for taking editors' comments on board. If you can't withdraw an AfD (I don't know what the process is or isn't) you can ask an administrator to procedurally close the AfD - there have been no comments supporting deletion other than your nomination so there is clear consensus to do so. Bookscale (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - and thank you for fixing up the article. Bookscale (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- hi Bromptop, please see WP:WDAFD about withdrawing nomination. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A company with 2500 employees not notable? Seems most unlikely. Schwede66 09:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Another case of WP:BEFORE. AfD is not clean-up, but this has been much improved, and notability is now clear. Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 04:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- CobornsDelivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see nothing notable about this company. It was a hyper local delivery service that went out of business and there's no articles about it anywhere that I can find that make it notable for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. A service of a transient company, now offered by a local grocer, with no inherent notability. Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: The article makes no claim of notability in the delivery operations of CobornsDelivers or previously SimonDelivers. Searches are finding more local coverage, largely around the contraction of services in August 2019, and a blog Q&A about the earlier company's failure, but nothing indicating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect, with effectively no support for expressly keeping the article after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 03:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mana Shetty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant promotion of film actor's wife. Merge page with Sunil Shetty if necessary. DragoMynaa (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Just PR blurb. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
- Delete and redirect – Redirect to Suniel Shetty. I was able to find two sources[37][38] that covered her significantly, other than that, nothing else - just passing mentions when talking about her husband, who is a famous actor. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Commment The last AfD about her seemed to find sources. I have no opinion on whether these suffice for notability. What is she doing in the academic section? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Ent#In popular culture. RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Treant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Deleted once in 2007, but I guess the history was restored for it to be a redirect and it sprung back up. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ent#In popular culture as non-notable. The article fails WP:GNG and does not have independent notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Selectively merge into Ent#In popular culture This creature is not independently notable from the creature it was based on. However, it is not currently mentioned in the potential target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Restore redirect to Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons)#Treant for lack of notability, which was already determined in the 2007 AfD. (The redirect was undone by an IP in 2011.) I'd rather not redirect this to Ent because we don't have a source for this, making it an OR or SYNTH problem. – sgeureka t•c 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gary Gygax admitted that the Treants were based on the Ents.[1] Of course, I would not be opposed to the other redirect option. Either one would work. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Daranios and AugusteBlanqui below or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you think that List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters would be a better merge target than Ent#In popular culture or Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons)#Treant? Not a very active user (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Selective Merge to Ent#In popular culture, per Susmuffin. I would be opposed to using the Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) as the redirect target as that article, itself, was one that was Redirected/Merged after an AFD, but then restored by a SPA IP a couple years later. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- ^ "Gary Gygax - Creator of Dungeons & Dragons". archives.theonering.net. Retrieved 2020-01-14.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or, failing that, merge and redirect because in addition to the interviews present on the page the treant is talked about in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters and more extensively in The Monsters Know What They're Doing, so there is treatment in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There appears to be rough consensus to merge, but I'll relist this in order for further discussion to ascertain the precise target of the merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Ent#In popular culture, as the other proposed merge target, Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) is also currently in AfD. Not a very active user (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ent#In popular culture. No evidence of standalone notability, sources do not provide any evidence of passing GNG, the article contains nothing but a list of appearances combined with in-universe information. Secondary sources are useless if they do not discuss anything outside of an in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The interviews cited in the article don't have in-universe content, neither does The Ashgate Encyclopedia...; The Monsters Know What They're Doing has sections which don't have in-universe perspective. That aside, I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. What I did not see in WP:GNG is that secondary sources providing plot summaries do not contribute to notability. Can you point me to where it says that such secondary sources are useless in that regard? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It’s been pretty well accepted that sources that since sources solely from an in universe perspective fail WP:PLOT, they do not contribute towards GNG. Maybe this is an interpretation thing, but countless people disregard secondary sources for being nothing but in-universe information. Since interviews are primary sources, they do not help pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. So I take away from that that discounting plot-summary information in secondary sources for notability is a common opinion, but neither a policy nor guideline. But as discussed, that is not a major point in this case anyway. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- It’s been pretty well accepted that sources that since sources solely from an in universe perspective fail WP:PLOT, they do not contribute towards GNG. Maybe this is an interpretation thing, but countless people disregard secondary sources for being nothing but in-universe information. Since interviews are primary sources, they do not help pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The interviews cited in the article don't have in-universe content, neither does The Ashgate Encyclopedia...; The Monsters Know What They're Doing has sections which don't have in-universe perspective. That aside, I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. What I did not see in WP:GNG is that secondary sources providing plot summaries do not contribute to notability. Can you point me to where it says that such secondary sources are useless in that regard? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Ent#In popular culture, it's an appropriate target and we don't need a stand-alone Treant article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Wonder if we need Treefolks in popular culture article or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ent is probably the best home for them for now, unless you can really find a lot of them: it would be nice to add a decently cited History section to Ent, showing precursors in folklore and mythology. We already have List of tree deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Daranios has identified two important sources for the D&D treant (these two are in addition to countless lower-quality sources which nevertheless contribute to the Treant's GNG). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was brought to my attention when it was mentioned at another recent D&D-related AFD. Looking at its history, it was already brought to AFD years ago, and Merged/Redirected per the consensus. Sometime after, as with a number of other D&D articles, it was restored without consensus by a SPA IP account. At this point, the article that it was originally merged to has, itself, been deleted per consensus at AFD, preventing me from simply restoring the redirect, but also making the preservation of this article no longer necessary. The same arguments for deletion given at the previous AFD still apply now - the topic is not covered in reliable, secondary sources in any way that would prove sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. The only non-primary source being used, the "For Dummies" book, is not only just two sentences of in-universe information, but as pointed out in the previous AFD, was written by two employees of Wizards of the Coast, making its independence dubious. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete May pass LISTN however it is more likely WP:CRUFT. If there is a target for a redirect, do so. otherwise delete.Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep or merge any information from the individual list items to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:LISTN, no independent reliable sources discuss D&D's plant creatures as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE. BOZ is voting keep in each of these, which is understandable as he is the page creator, but I would be curious to know his rationale for claiming these meet GNG. They are merely describing entries from the AD&D monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails to establish notability, and there is nothing worth retaining elsewhere. TTN (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. It looks as if this is actually the 3rd nomination for this article, since we also had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) in 2007 already.
- Delete and WP:SALT as non-notable cruft. Starting to get pretty WP:SNOWy in here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge the introductory section to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons and redirect. There is no benefit in utterly deleting the existing information, as it can be used later when secondary and primary sources can properly be integrated into other articles. Secondary sources exist, in addition to the contested Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies plant creatures are at lease mentioned at Churlew, Matthew (2006). ""Masters of the Wild": Animals and the Environment in Dungeons & Dragons" (PDF). Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies. 32 (1): 135–168. And individual ones, possible also information as a group, appear in The Monsters Know What They're Doing. Daranios (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I took a look at the PDF, and the mention of plant monsters is literally just a mention. As in, they're more or less just listed as a type of monster in the game without any kind of actual description or coverage. That is not sufficient to indicate any kind of notability. And every time that The Monsters Know What They're Doing book has come up in discussions, I've never seen the actual entry be anything more than a straight description of a monster as it exists in the game, with nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 St. George Dragons#District Juniors. Or elsewhere, to be determined by editors. Sandstein 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Earlwood Saints (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)
Junior amateur rugby league team in Sydney. I am unable to find the slightest bit of info (besides their own Facebook page) online and therefore believe that it fails to meet the basic notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your point however there are a lot of other rugby league clubs with pages that have virtually no online sources as well (e.g. Zetland Magpies). Also Sports TG seems to have taken down all of their websites so their website is not operating at the moment. WDM10 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to St. George Dragons#District Juniors. I cannot find anything that would come close to meeting GNG in its own right, or that there might be more references hiding somewhere. However, it is a likely search term and there is a good spot already existing to merge the lead into, and the notable players are already listed there too. The same might apply to some of the other, referred to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS too. Aoziwe (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this redirect moreso if it must be redirected as it lists the notable juniors of the club whereas the Sydney Combined Competition lists minimal information about the club. WDM10 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- This was a redirect to Sydney_Combined_Competition#District_clubs for four and a half years until 14 Jan; we should just restore the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 07:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Bookscale (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the reason for redirection however I don't see how redirecting back to Sydney_Combined_Competition#District_clubs gives any real information about the club apart from where they play. The St George page however shows more information about the club which people will want to know about (e.g. former players). WDM10 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- A club should be redirected to the league they play in. The St. George Dragons have little to no association with this club, from what I can tell, and that article does not cover the club significantly enough for me to support changing the redirect there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- These articles show that they play in the St George District competition as well and the St. George Dragons page also has details about the district competition as well.[1] [2] WDM10 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- That section is completely unsourced. Not a big NRL fan but it would be very strange to see a junior league on any Victorian AFL club page... SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's a rugby league page. There's no AFL on it (ourfootyteam I assume you're talking about). WDM10 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- And also, because they're in both competitions, it'd be better to just have their own page stating that instead of redirecting to one competition or another. WDM10 (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like most NRL or former NRL teams have sections on the junior league in their area, but I still support the original redirect to the league they actually play in. My AFL reference was because I didn't understand how closely the junior leagues were tied with the senior club in Sydney. (As an aside, it also looks like a lot of NRL pages could use a decent amount of cleanup.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand. In NSW, the professional clubs run the juniors below and the young players are considered juniors of the club in which their junior club played in, even if they didn't play for the actual club itself. So most clubs in Sydney, including the Earlwood Saints, are part of a smaller association (like the St. George District Rugby League) and the Sydney Combined Competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDM10 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like most NRL or former NRL teams have sections on the junior league in their area, but I still support the original redirect to the league they actually play in. My AFL reference was because I didn't understand how closely the junior leagues were tied with the senior club in Sydney. (As an aside, it also looks like a lot of NRL pages could use a decent amount of cleanup.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to St. George Dragons#District Juniors (with {{R to section}} and {{R from subtopic}}) as a better option than the previous redirect to Sydney Combined Competition#District clubs. A merge would produce undue weight. The only possible non-trivial mention would be this book without a preview who's topic seems very unlikely to result in significant coverage of the unrelated Earlwood Saints. J947 (c), at 03:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Relisting comment: There is consensus to redirect this either to Sydney Combined Competition#District clubs or St. George Dragons#Districit Juniors. I'll relist this to get a better gauge of which one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 14:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- ClearPath Foundation (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)
Thirteen of the 14 references here violate WP:RS. 100% promotional, and the organization itself hardly meets WP:NOTE. Dorama285 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep There seems to be some other coverage of their lobbying like here, here, and here. If it is kept the article should integrate the sources and take out the promotional stuff.
- Keep: lots of news coverage:
- Mother Jones: What’s the Real Deal With This GOP Megadonor Who’s Claimed He Wants Climate Action? [39]
- Politico: Republican pledges $175 million to push party on climate [40]
- Charlotte Observer "Jay Faison hopes his latest start-up can change minds on climate change [41].IceFishing (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. An alternative: Merge with the page for Jay Faison. It has the same sourcing issues, but together, the two could become one page with a few legitimate citations. Dorama285 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think it makes more sense to keep both pages.IceFishing (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- So, I admit that I had never heard of Faison or his "environmental" foundation before stumbling into this discussion, and that it/he is not my shade of green. So I looked for him, and found not only Mother Jones' deep dive (linked above) but Politico 50 [42]; Washington Post says he's a big-money donor in Virginia politics [43], founded a company called SnapAV which he sold for enough to start ClearPath [44] and lots more in news searches. As for ClearPath, there is both recent: September 2019: Charleston’s biggest Dutch Dialogues funder is a GOP climate advocate [ https://www.postandcourier.com/news/charleston-s-biggest-dutch-dialogues-funder-is-a-gop-climate/article_5263bfee-c90a-11e9-be3d-478b04fbaa10.html] ; Axios :[45], and in depth coverage going back years. Some of it, from just five years ago, can feel like it comes from a different century: The Atlantic: What Will It Take to Get Climate Change on the Republican Agenda? An entrepreneur plans to find out by spending $175 million with the aim of encouraging Republican politicians to address climate change. [46]. But here's the thing, when a search of the New York Times shows leaders of the ClearPath being quoted and mentioned pretty regularly: [47], [48], [49], rest of search here: [50], and do does the Wall Street Journal [51], [52] and the Washington Post : [53], [54], [55]... I could go on, bu tthis is exactly the sort of subject that you go to Wikipedia for after you read the newspaper.IceFishing (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Politico and Charlotte Observer are certainly RS and therefore passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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 Draftify. RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Go Fish (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This film with notable actors but no significant coverage in reliable sources. If not deleted, it could be merged/redirected to Free Comic Book Day. Citrivescence (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect, at least for now, to Arcana Studio, the creator of the film, to avoid giving undue emphasis to a single arbitrary film/comic at Free Comic Book Day. I can only find brief, routine announcements of existence, not in depth coverage, and the nomination for a Xingguang Award does not satisfy WP:NFO. I can't vouch for the prestige of the Xingguang Award (in China or anywhere else), but if it's a relatively minor award then even winning it may not guarantee a stand-alone article. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or Drafitfy or something like that, out of mainspace. The film has been out for eight weeks. It will probably generate some coverage soon, but there is not enough now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify or delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. As always, films are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the notability test for films is the ability to show that they have been the subject of reliable source coverage in media, such as actual critical reviews and/or production coverage. But four of the five references here are simple directory entries, and the only one that isn't is a blog rather than a reliable source — and on a Google search, even using "go fish" film 2019 -troche as the search term to filter out hits on the 1994 film by Rose Troche, I still got more hits for the Rose Troche film than I got for this, and the ones I did get for this still weren't reliable or notability-supporting sources. So no, nothing here is enough and I can't find the necessary sources to fix it. Let's face it, this is basically a Finding Nemo knockoff. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Draft incase there are more rs reviews to come, could only find one by Commensense Media, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Drafitfy: although I am uncertain if there is enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG policy, it may receive more reviews in the future. I am in agreement with the above editors, and I would not be opposed to the article being recreated if further sources are found and incorporated into the article. I think this would be a fair compromise over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.