Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_13 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Fails to show consensus Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Global Action Through Fashion

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

Fails both GNG and NCORP. All sources cited are extremely minor mentions in articles mostly about associated events, although many are self-references. Among quality sources available, there is this one, which similarly only mentions the organization in passing. PK650 ( talk) 04:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 04:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Mere mentions abound. Missvain ( talk) 01:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet notability requirements Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Rock'n August

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

Article about a community festival, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for events. This is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as its own self-published website about itself and the self-published websites of organizations that have sponsorship affiliations with it, and features no evidence whatsoever of any notability-building media coverage about it. Furthermore, even though the event's website verifies that it's still in existence today, the article is so poorly maintained that it still describes the 2010 event as upcoming and has never been updated for any year since 2010. As always, the notability test for something like this is not the ability to use its own primary source web presence as technical verification that it exists — it's the ability to show that the event has been the subject of sufficient media coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I will try to see if I can find reliable sources that establish notability in the next few days. There may not be enough, we shall see-- but that it has not been updated lately is not a good argument for deletion. Discant X 13:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. I am unable to find anything outside of routine coverage such as in event listings. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Ultimately a brief mention in St. Albert, Alberta may be all that is warranted, if at all. -- Kinu ^t/_c 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete – Does not meet GNG. Missvain ( talk) 01:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Frontier League rosters. Missvain ( talk) 16:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Can-Am League rosters

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

League is now defunct following its merger into the Frontier League; page is no longer necessary Pozzi.c ( talk) 21:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Pozzi.c ( talk) 21:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Frontier League rosters since the leagues merged and the Can-Am teams are in the Frontier now. Delete is also a possibility, especially since the page does not appear to have been updated since its creation in 2018. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Hog Farm. Plausible search term for readers unaware of the merger. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Vito Genovese. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ferdinand Boccia

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC—this person is mentioned in several books due to being primarily known as a murder victim of Vito Genovese, however, significant coverage does not go beyond these mentions. Not enough coverage of this person to warrant a standalone article—any relevant info can, and is, stated at Genovese's article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Vito Genovese Missvain ( talk) 01:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge with Vito Genovese. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- All the sourced content surrounding his murder is already at Vito Genovese - everything here is just unsourced OR. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Jane Borghesi

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

A non-notable actor who has garnered no significant coverage. She's had minor parts in a few TV shows, a couple of films and some stage plays. The article has been tagged as poorly-sourced for nearly a decade: the only footnote is to an article from 14 years ago mentioning her connection with another performer, and this fails WP:NOTINHERITED ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak keep It is very easy to find plenty of minor references to the subject refering to the subject's acting roles across genre. There are also references available for her writing. While there is sufficient to reference most if not all of the claims in the current article, from what I found it would be difficult to go much beyond that, ie no real in-depth. However, there is more than just proving EXISTS. Aoziwe ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete we should not be keeping actresses on a bunch of minor references. There are not significant roles in notable productions. Lots of small roles do not add up to notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete: I don't think the actress quite meet the notability standards. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Brewer (John Updike)

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

This fails to establish notability. There's some coverage in "The John Updike Encyclopedia", but that seems to be the main extent of it. Realistically, the main articles seem like they should be plenty capable of handling all discussion of the topic unless there's some overwhelming amount of coverage I'm not seeing. TTN ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, speedy close. An honest, competent editor would not have made this nomination. A simple Google Scholar search turns up nearly 2400 hits, including such obviously relevant pieces as "From Shillington to Ipswich: John Updike's Mid-Century Suburbia". The coverage so casually dismissed in the Updike "Encyclopedia" is actually a detailed full-page entry treating the subject as likely the most significant and commented-on of Updike's fictive locales. There is, of course, no need to produce an "overwhelming amount of coverage" to demonstrate that a subject meets GNG requirements, but it is clear that an apparently overwhelming amount exists, and the only reason the nominator is "not seeing" any is that he simply is not looking. But this is the same editor who absurdly insisted that there was no substantial coverage of George Orwell's fiction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Jumping in and dropping some unrealistic number helps nothing. TTN ( talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That's neither a substantive response nor the expected response of a good faith editor. Since you're essentially acknowledging that the subject meets GNG requirements -- hardly a surprise for an important element in the work of one of the most acclaimed and most studied American authors of the latter half of the 20th century -- there's no reason not to summarily close this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what kind of response you expect when you jump into every interaction with your trademark curmudgeon attitude. I guess I'm not particularly one to talk considering I did the same thing fairly recently. But regardless, all you've done is claim sources exist (and that number seems literally impossible no matter what word combo I use) without any regard to their substance or the proper weight of this topic in relation to the main articles. TTN ( talk) 23:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Now you're accusing me of lying. And your accusation includes plain falsehood. "Literally impossible"? Not hardly. Your utter lack of searching competence, self-proclaimed, is no basis for a rational argument. All you do is claim sources do not exist. I plain and simple gave an example of a substantive relevant source, whose existence and content you've made no effort to examine. You've got a long track record of at best gross inaccuracy. You have no business impugning the honesty or competence of any other editor, especially with your trademark attitude of determined ignorance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 00:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Considering that "'Brewer' "Updike'" only gives 1450 results and "'Brewer' 'John Updike'" gives 691, I'm not particularly sure how else you could broaden the search without introducing irrelevant results. Regardless, I guess it's a particularly pointless argument because there's really not much relative difference if you take away 1700 results. It's up to you to provide sources to establish notability. Tossing out a random number does nothing in particular, nor does your eternally combative nature to any and every person who disagrees even the slightest with how you think. TTN ( talk) 01:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete No indication of real-world notability or importance beyond the works this appears in ( WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG). It would need quite a few non-trivial sources to convince me this needs a stand-alone article and can't be covered in the articles on the works it appears in. Tarbox and Henry Bech suffer the same problem. – sgeureka ^t•
c 08:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- Endorse my !vote even after improvement. It still qualifies as a stub per WP:STUBDEF (i.e. no indication of significant coverage), the plot has just turned into sourced plot now (doesn't help with WP:NOTPLOT), and the sources that Hunter Kahn mentioned below seem better suited to develop and beef up the main articles on the novels (or a novel-spanning franchise article). – sgeureka ^t•
  c 11:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Sgeureka I've added some additional content and sources that go well beyond plot summary and that I believe provide the more significant coverage you're seeking. (Please note these are not the only sources I've seen available about Brewer, but rather a couple; I think much more could be added to the article in the future to improve it even further.) — Hunter Kahn 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. This article did not cite any sources before, but I've gone through and added several from books, news articles, journals, and other sources. There are many other sources out there beyond the ones I added (I simply added a few to back up the specific facts that were already included in the article) so the article could certainly be expanded beyond what currently exists. All of this is more than enough to convince me the subject meets notability standards and should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There's barely any significant coverage in anything you added. The overall commentary on how the author views America itself definitely seems to be something that, if not an article on its own, should either be in the author's article or a series article. This one city, however, does not seem to have received significant enough discussion to require it be a completely separate topic. I really don't get why people are so adamant about splitting minor topics when the main articles range from horrible to slightly decent. TTN ( talk) 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- And likewise, I don't really understand why there are so many editors who seem to be adamant about deleting large swatches of articles about fictional topics, rather than searching for sources and expand/improve those articles, which it seems to be would better serve our readers. But in any event, as I said above, I didn't add any additional content to this article, just citations to support the existing content that was already here, so I can see why you might misunderstand that there isn't significant coverage available. But as I said, over the course of the limited research I did, I found a large amount of coverage on this topic that could be easily used to expand this article further. — Hunter Kahn 13:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  - I looked at most of the sources themselves, but they're simply passing mentions in relation to the plot in most cases. The primary commentary on this city seems to relate to the author's draw to his hometown, which is a small part of the wider commentary on his works and personal views. TTN ( talk) 13:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    - I believe there is much more coverage of this topic than you are indicating, but in any event, there's no need for us to continue to engage in a back-and-forth. We've stated our opinions, we disagree with each other, and we can leave it at that. :) — Hunter Kahn 14:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:GOOGLEHITS is a weak indicator of notability, but nobody presented a single source which provides an in-depth analysis. Yes, there are some mentions in passing, but that's not enough. Do ping me if an in-depth source is offered for review so I can reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 21:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- Several of the books and scholarly sources I added discuss the setting in more depth than a passing mention. Additionally, The John Updike Encyclopedia by Jack De Bellis dedicates considerable space and coverage to Brewer, Pennsylvania, including how it" represents a typical middle-class American town reflecting all the changes in America from 1959 to 1989" including altering family patterns, changing institutions, declining and emerging businesses, changing styles in sports, entertainment, rising new classes and groups, changing styles of leisure, increasingly visible vice, and more. This is just one example of the types of sources I came upon while searching for citations to add to the article. (Material from this particular book has not yet been added to the article itself, but hopefully I'll get the chance to do so some time soon...) — Hunter Kahn 22:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  Update: Piotrus I have added some additional content and sources (both the book I mentioned to you earlier, as well as some others) that I think provide some of the in-depth sourcing you were looking for. Please feel free to take a look and let me know your thoughts. Also please note, as I just said to Sgeureka above, these are not the only sources I've seen available about Brewer, but rather a couple; I think additional expansions and improvements could easily be made in the future. — Hunter Kahn 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge. I'm finding a lot of discussion of Brewer in literary criticism, which scholars consistently see as the core site of what Updike has to say about America, so I think it has a claim to notability -- I can read these more thoroughly and add to the article later. But I also notice that there is no entry for the "Rabbit" cycle itself, as a cycle -- the cycle-as-a-cycle is clearly extremely notable, with much scholarly work discussing how Updike develops his themes across the works, and a substantial section on Brewer would clearly have a place in such an article. Should this article be merged into a new "Rabbit cycle" article? ~ oulfis 🌸( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- I agree that there is potential for a standalone article about the Rabbit series (or cycle or brand or whatever it would be termed). Based on the small amount of research I've done on Brewer it seems like there is a LOT written about the Rabbit novels that would justify such an article. I do think the coverage about Brewer itself is significant enough that a standalone article about is still appropriate (and just redirecting it at this point in time would just result in an article skewed heavily about the setting and not touching on the other elements of the series), though if a general Rabbit series article were to be created, discussions about possible merges could take place in the appropriate talk places later on... — Hunter Kahn 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge per Oulfis. Brewer is important in Updike's work as really the center of the only fictional universe he created and set multiple works in. Enough third-party sources, now cited in the article, have written about it that the question of independent notability (not that there ever would have been one to a reader familiar with Updike's work and scholarship on it; we should remember when considering notability that the threshold question isn't how many sources are cited in the article, it's how many could be) is settled. With time and effort this article could easily make it to this list. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Hunter Kahn has done an excellent job in rescuing this article, as demonstrated by the many citations to independent reliable sources in the reference section. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Skumdum

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

Fails WP:BAND. Razer( talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. No claim to notability, with a name that unusual, it shouldn't be hard to prove notability but I couldn't. Ifnord ( talk) 21:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - virtually no coverage in news or newspapers. Bearian ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Sergei Aman

(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. Also I do not see any criterion from WP:NAUTHOR satisfied hence falls short of WP:NAUTHOR as well. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Weak~~ kKeep; in his I found this from Echo of Moscow and this from Trud. Both look reliable and discuss him in significant detail.^[a] The second one may or may not be independent considering how Google Translate works but I think that it is independent. Systemic bias here leads me to a slight keep that may be overturned given further discoveries. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- The other source means that the weak portion of my !vote is no longer needed. J 947 ^{^{^(
  c)}}, at 01:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

*KEEP! It should be improved rather than deleted. For more than a decade, Sergei Aman was a journalist of the daily newspaper " Moskovskij Komsomolets", which is one of the largest Russian newspapers. He wrote several hundred articles in this newspaper. — Chugunkin ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: Add coverage in Literaturnaya Gazeta as well ( [1]) which adds evidence to how WP:NAUTHOR is met, not to mention in the articles by Andrei Gusev. Spokoyni ( talk) 09:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Seems notable, though article could use tweaking Lorelai1335 ( talk) 19:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335 reply

^ The first one marginally so, but due to the fact that Russia has little internet exposure (see Wikipedia:Systemic bias) I will let it slide.

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. Non-notable band Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Lastkaj14

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

Non notable music band who lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Each member of the band do not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Did my due diligence and only found mere mentions related to a few festivals/tours. Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I found https://www.hd.se/2020-01-13/folkupproret-som-tog-sig-hela-vagen, which is a short article about one of the band members and the band (in Swedish) and https://www.schmutzberlin.com/show/lastkaj14-panika/ which is a concert promo, but there is no significant coverage. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. No claim to notability. Ifnord ( talk) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - complete lack of sources, couldn't find a thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - if sources can be provided before closing I can re-consider. Otherwise I can only suggest re-creation if/when sources are provided. for now delete per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - there's literally a single news source to verify its existence. There's no sources on the page except Facebook and Discogs. Bearian ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Non in-universe notability not established Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Lalaith

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

Utterly minor character (she is, after all, a three-year-old) who has no effect on any plot. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Her brother and sister may be notable but she is not. I actually am less than convinced we even need articles on them seperate from the article on the story in which they appear, but I do not think we need this article at all. The fact that the last discussion did not result in at least a merger is a sign of how difficult it is to undo past horrible decisions. Starting Wikipedia without inclusion criteria was a horrible plan, we are still repenting for that mistake. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete She is barely notable from an in-universe perspective. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm gonna have to say delete on this one. A Spanish-language article titled "A tragédia em Tolkien: uma análise literária sobre a presença do trágico em Os filhos de Húrin" might be something, but I can't read it. Articles in Mythlore, The Journal of Literary Onomastics, and what appears to be a book review of The Children of Húrin in Tolkien Studies all appear to be plot-based mentions. Possible redirect to Túrin Turambar. Hog Farm ( talk) 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- For all of her family I am unconvinced we really need to have seperate articles, and feel we should just provide coverage at the article on the Narn. On the other hand, that article seems a little short on plot details. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- I've checked the article you mentioned (which is in Portuguese for that matter) but concerning Lalaith it only contains plot summary. It is also just a student's course assignment, so apparently not even a graduation thesis that might have counted in terms of sources. De728631 ( talk) 03:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  - When we have to scrape to undergrad non-thesis papers, we are not really finding reliable sources, or indications that the topic is of wide interest. When a paper is published it has gone through multiple levels of being accepted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Túrin Turambar. This is currently the most comprehensive article that mentions her. De728631 ( talk) 03:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: a minor character in minor works.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Procedural close. ~~Since the old AfD result was already delete, I'll go ahead and just delete this redirect in this case to avoid bureaucracy ( WP:IAR).~~ WP:RFD would be the proper place to ask for this in the future. – sgeureka ^t•
c 08:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In hindsight, the present solution to redirect to Races of StarCraft#Zerg seems right to me as a likely search term. Disagreement can be discussed at WP:RFD. – sgeureka ^t•
c 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Zergling

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

Not sure that I'm doing this right at all, but I'm essentially trying to finish up the result of the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling. The result was delete/transwiki, but none of the articles were actually deleted. They all became redirects to Races of StarCraft, which doesn't even mention any of these topics because they're non-notable. An additional problem is that the existence of the redirects looks like a suggestion to other editors that these should be added to disambiguation pages, which they shouldn't be. Does a discussion even need to take place or can an admin just finish the job here? -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I also reached out to the closing admin of the previous discussion a month ago, but they appear to be inactive. -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 13. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural close as wrong venue. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Seems like a reasonable redirect to me in any case, though. -- Finngall ^talk 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

LyreBird (Tales of Helpmann)

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

An unsourced page about a play which has no significant coverage and doesn't appear to have garnered any major awards. Looking at the edit history, I have a suspicion that the two main contributors may be the same person: looking at their user names and their own edit histories ( here and here) there may be a COI here. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete When the only source is a promotional website we have nothing even remotely suggesting notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per Johnpacklambert. Tyler Coppin should be deleted for the same reasons. A google search shows that Coppin has performed this one-man play in the UK as well as Australia. But just because something is a play that has actually been produced does not mean that it is an encyclopedic topic. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Admin User:Jimfbleak per WP:G7 & WP:G12. ( non-admin closure) Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 11:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

2005 Diyarbakır speech

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

Fails WP:SOAP, not to mention the rather obvious bias towards the Turkish regime. -- 90.232.66.157 ( talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nomination completed on behalf of IP.. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete as it is a copyvio, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Little to no participation after two relists. Missvain ( talk) 16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Do I exist: A riddle

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

I mistakenly Prodded this, having missed the earlier prod. However, this short film still meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not voting one way or the other yet because I haven't had a chance to do a thorough search for sources, but I was able to find at least a couple (examples here and here) at first glance, and it appears this short film has been chosen for a number of international film festivals (Pondicherry International Film Festival, Shimla International Film Festival, International Panorama Film Festival, Tunisia and Jaipur International Film Festival). Will try to do more research and change my vote accordingly in the near future. (Incidentally, if it is kept, I'm pretty sure the title should be changed to "Do I Exist: A Riddle", with the upper-cased letters.) — Hunter Kahn 14:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hunter Kahn: just a note that film festivals are everywhere and may not be independently notable or confer notability onto the film. Per WP:FILMCRITICLIST Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion. If we are supposed to be circumspect about films that win awards at festivals, then we should probably be more circumspect about a film that is bragging that it was merely screened at one. I would also consider whether or not a film festival that has run for only 2 years is presumed to be notable. This is probably not surprising, but people often rely on mom-and-pop festivals and fly-by-night award entities in order to promote their creative project. And it typically doesn't take much more than submitting a film and paying a fee to get into a film festival, so these sorts of brags don't typically sway my cynical ass.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Cyphoidbomb I don't disagree, and I wasn't trying to argue the film festivals themselves are an indication of notability. I was just sharing what I'd found for now on an brief search, before doing a deeper look for reliable sources. Based on my initial look, I'm guesing this one does NOT meet notability standards... — Hunter Kahn 17:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 05:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Roni Bandini

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 20:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. He got a local award. No evidence he passes WP:GNG, much less WP:NAUTHOR. Bearian ( talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that notability not established Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Georgi Ajanovski

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

He is a journalist, but doesn't qualify as notable for that, nor is his notability inherited from his father. He has articles in 2 other languages, one of which is an unreferenced sub-stub. Boleyn ( talk) 18:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. I even took a look at the other language Wikipedia's where the subject has an article and they either cited Wikipedia or also had broken links, like the English language article. I also could not find any sigcov about him through a Google search. Missvain ( talk) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable journalist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Jayprakash Majumdar

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

Losing candidate in election. Fails WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete unelected candidate for public office. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Majority of reliable secondary sources are mere mentions about him losing, him be accused of child molestation, or him being kicked into shrubbery during the elections. Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither demonstrates preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy nor sources a credible reason to treat his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - a local party official who ran once for office, which is run of the mill. Bearian ( talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

N. P. Manicham Errthandaar

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

Article deleted via PROD in October 2019, restored now at WP:REFUND as a contested PROD. I agree that sourcing does not establish notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. I could only find passing mentions. Perhaps there are other language sources, but, for English language sources, I could find very few. Missvain ( talk) 20:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete No clear evidence of meeting GNG. Accesscrawl ( talk) 13:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - while he seems to have advocated well for the Dalit, but that doesn't make him notable. Bearian ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#A7 and G11. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Prashant basista

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

Fails WP:BIO. Apparent autobiography with promotional tones, and with the sole source not really an established, reputable one (yet?). I couldn't find other sources which would indicate any notability here. Fram ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete per WP:G11 as a promotional WP:AUTOBIO. The editor who created it is also using two separate accounts as well. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete (possible speedy A7/G11): A promotional article by new user Prashantthesocialmediaexpert sourced to self-written articles and an online Q&A. No evidence of attained notability for this youth provided or found. AllyD ( talk) 17:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete there is no point in even having a discussion over this garbage. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Being bold and doing a speedy close early. Missvain ( talk) 20:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Cosnino, Arizona

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. Sources in the History section mention Cosnino as a landmark but do not place any significance on the location itself. (Split from previous batch AfD) – dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Easily passes WP:GEOLAND #1 (and WP:GNG as well, even though that's not the test for populated places.) There's lots of newspaper articles on the community on newspapers.com. SportingFlyer T· C 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep While it's also listed as a city on older highway maps that I have physical copies of, Cosnino has appeared in the news as recently as four days ago. An earlier article about the same incident explicitly describes its location. Here's another story from the past week, this one fortunately not about murder, which describes a different couple living in Cosnino. There was another murder there in 2012 (and believe me, I wish I could cite more positive news). And that's without even getting into the older news links that SportingFlyer found, which don't turn up easily on Google. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Cosnino, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep meets GEOLAND and is still being mentioned in the news. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. It is a real, and populated place, and is receiving news mentions. Part of a large batch of poorly BEFORE'd articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Michael Pockley

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

Non-notable author/buddhist figure. No reviews of his works, no coverage of him under any name. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Suggest resolving Koro Kaisan Miles Chaun zhi and Jy Ding first. Please start with Jy Ding first? It is the earliest link in the chain.

Koro Kaisan Miles is a new page in review, and a rework of an earlier draft under a different name (Fa Lohng Huo Hong Fa). Koro Kaisan Miles resolves the orphaned entry issue and is the bridge between Jy Ding, Chuan zhi, and Michael Pockley.

If it is agreed that Koro Kaisan Miles is substantiated enough, but that Michael Pockley isn't, suggest putting brief details of Michael Pockley onto the Koro Kiasan Miles page. OR, adding both under Chuan zhi? Brofitable ( talk) 16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete – fails WP:GNG, doesn't appear to meet any WP:SNG – Leviv ich 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Can’t find evidence for passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I also had a fail when identifying reliable secondary coverage and sigcov. Missvain ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

If an article is deleted, can it be recreated as an article for review later on? I didn't understand this step when I started out. Brofitable ( talk) 23:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for Chuan zhi, Jy Ding, and for Hsu Yun Temple. Several new citations added to each. Zenothing ( talk) 11:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: Just in case it is not evident to other editors coming here, Zenothing is the same editor as Brofitable (via an appropriate user rename). — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Corva, Arizona

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) – dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Marked as a (site) on topo map. There was a Corva Cedar Products company placing ads in the paper, so they may have had operations there but I can't find evidence it was a populated place or had notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a recognised railroad station (which shut down in 1971). The place is still referred to by contemporary trainspotters. [2] SportingFlyer T· C 00:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a no consensus at that all stations are notable and don't need to meet GNG. See Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations and Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 65#Train stations. Stations are not geographic feature, the only relevant part of GEOLAND would be as buildings which require sig cov. MB 05:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, but I added a source to the article showing people had moved into houses there, which gets it past our low populated place threshold. SportingFlyer T· C 06:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep for the reasons cited in the previous batch AfD. It's cited in a book of Arizona place names, was used as a place name in 1974 according to this book, and was discussed as a real populated place in the several articles SportingFlyer mentioned in the other AfD. Unlike many of the other places recently nominated for deletion, there's every indication that this is a real populated place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Corva, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per the two previous comments. It already well passes the threshold. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Part of a large batch of poorly BEFORE'd articles. It is a real and populated place, and passes WP:GEOLAND. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per the others above. Was a historic population center and still a big part of southwest rail history. Oakshade ( talk) 06:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 16:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Coconino, Arizona

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) – dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Looks like the south rim of the Grand Canyon is in Coconino. Also Grand Canyon and Coconino National Forest in Coconino. waterfall. And here. Lightburst ( talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
These links are referring to Coconino County, Arizona, not a town or address (the poster description has omitted "county"). The 1979 topo map (top middle) suggests it's another former siding on the Atchison-Topeka railroad: the Grand Canyon Railway. Unfortunately because Flagstaff's newspaper was the Coconino Sun and it's in Coconino County, I can't find any results about this siding. The next ones down the line are Apex, Arizona, Woodin, Arizona, Willaha, Arizona, and Valle, Arizona (which is an actual town on the highway a few miles from the railroad), but the ones after that ( see this link for map) did not have articles made. These could be merged to Grand Canyon Railway. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that Reywas92. You are a careful researcher. I see that Coconino County, Arizona already exists and Coconino National Forest exists. The Coconino, Arizona in the nomination adds confussion. My !vote would be to Delete in order to avoid the confusion. Lightburst ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment since this shares its name with the name of the county, it's going to be very difficult to search for. SportingFlyer T· C 00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep This was once the terminus and later the penultimate stop before the Grand Canyon on the Grand Canyon Railway (see here). It is named after Coconino Canyon, which is in turn was named after the Havasupai who were known as the "Coconino" ("wood killers") by the Hopi, and this is how the county was named. We need more on these topics and this location, not a redirect to the railway article.( [3], [4], [5] etc)---- Pontificalibus 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Coconino, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per Pontificalibus. Does appear to be notable enough. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep While finding sources is quite hard because the county has the same name, Pontificalibus shows good work here. This is another from a large batch of poorly BEFORE'd Arizona AfDs. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per the sources found by Pontificalibus; despite the difficulty in finding them, they certainly seem to be out there. (Also, reducing confusion with similarly-named places isn't a valid reason to delete articles; by that logic, we should delete Los Angeles to avoid confusion with Los Angeles County.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 04:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Chair Crossing, Arizona

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) – dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete River crossing that was not on the 1999 topo map but showed up in 2011. Nothing found on newspapers.com Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete What this was, according to my research, was the name for where the Mormon road which required a trip over Lees Ferry crossed the Paria River, which you needed to do until around 1930 when US 89 was completed. Not a populated place, and all of my research is roundabout. SportingFlyer T· C 07:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete does not pass Geoland or GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 01:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 16:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Warsangali Sultanate

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

This was brought to my attention on my talk page. I can't find any mention of this sultanate in the sources used, even the quotation from Lewis doesn't mention it. It doesn't appear to be used in reliable sources before 2004 [6]. I can find a mention of a Warsangali Sultanate here [7] but it's a 13th century one, so clearly not this one. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - This appears to be a case of both original research and CIRCULAR. Prior to creation of article on Wikipedia (9 Oct 2004), there is very little mention of this 'sultanate' anywhere, Google returns nothing [8], neither does Google Books [9] nor Scholar [10]. Additionally, much of the content of the original article created in 2004 [11] was taken verbatim from a self-published site (Warsangali.org) [12]. Lack of reliable sources published prior to Wikipedia article creation for this supposed real-world kingdom is a red flag. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Draftify Contains some good content, but appears to be questionable original research research. I'd recommend starting over and seeing if it can be rewritten. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 20:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per above, the sources on this are sparse, and what's written in the article mentions a clan and not a kingdom so it is better suited for Warsangali instead. As it stands, this bears all the hallmarks of original research given the lack of reliable sources. Kangdomkome ( talk) 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Atlan (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN with no third-party coverage. Article never sourced since its 2012 creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. I could not find sigcov. It doesn't help that the band Altan shares the same name, however. Missvain ( talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Kwame Alexander (basketball). Missvain ( talk) 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ogom Chijindu

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 05:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 05:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly merge to Kwame Alexander (basketball), her husband. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 20:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect and note her in the Personal life section of Kwame Alexander Govvy ( talk) 17:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Govvy. Rlendog ( talk) 18:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Kwame Alexander. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect per redirect #votes. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: She isn't actually mentioned in the redirect suggested. Happy for this to be closed as a redirect once a reliably sourced statement to that effect is added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 13:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect Such a statement is there now. Can we just close this and not waste everybody's time for another week? Smartyllama ( talk) 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the current sources are not reliable/independent enough to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nicole Shiraz

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

This person gets some coverage in the tabloid/gossip/gutter press, but I don't see enough in-depth coverage in solid reliable sources either to justify having a page or to enable us to write one. She has started a small business, and that is covered by NewsComAu. She is apparently th same person as Nicole Asgar. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I seems like there was a previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Asgar), which resulted in a delete. Achaea ( talk) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep as there are quite a few stories in gossip magazines as well as some serious news reporting places. So topic this passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete There is plenty of material in various gossip publications, but there is nothing sufficient that I can find in any mainstream publication. And gossip publications are just that, not reliable. By the time one removes references soley due to the subject's boy friends, some of whom are notable in their right, but notability is not inherited, and the facebook, and the instagram, and the twitter, and photo sites, and the "spot the celebrity who is only famous for being famous" sites, etc., there was only a very small handfull of hits left, referring to BossLadies, but not enough that I could see to support anything like GNG, and then that would be inherited, ie Boss Ladies might be notable but not its creator. I am okay with being corrected if someone can give me appropriate counter examples. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete A ProQuest database search of all Australian and NZ newspapers revealed 3 extremely brief mentions of Shiraz in equally brief articles about a realty TV star and LA Lakers basketball player. While the sources are national publications (Sunday Telegraph and Daily Telegraph), none of the articles are substantive about the subject, let alone Shiraz. Fails WP:IRS. Cabrils ( talk) 06:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. A celebutante with significant coverage is still notable, even if she's merely famous for being famous. Bearian ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Provided that coverage is in reliable sources though? Aoziwe ( talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I love love loveeeee my binge-worthy celebutantes (lol, I had never heard that before until Bearian mentioned it) and any excuse to look at stupid trashy websites, but alas, I think it might be WP:TOOSOON. This Heavy article is the closest thing to a source I consider trustworthy (in the US it's a popular, trusted popular culture magazine). I will gladly write it when she does make it out of the Daily Mail and into Cosmopolitan. Missvain ( talk) 02:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Although she is very pretty, all that supports this page is a few gossip column mentions. NotButtigieg ( talk) 13:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Thankfully beauty has nothing to do with having a Wikipedia article. Phew! Missvain ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete lacking reliable sources to establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. Teraplane ( talk) 02:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. As the only two keep arguments have compelling rebuttals which were not countered. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Orang-bati

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

Fails GNG; no significant coverage outside of fringe sources. – dlthewave ☎ 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The source listed in the article is available at academia.edu and misused somewhat. wikt:orang is a "later innovation" in Malay. Looks like all from Shuker.— eric 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC); reply

Delete not at all notable. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - I'm going to go out on a limb, pardon the pun, and say there's an argument to be made is is a notable mythical creature. There's been some coverage in periodicals, books, and a scholarly article on mythology. Bearian ( talk) 23:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- Your first two links are just to google searches. The third link is a good article, but the only reference to the Bati is a work called Esuriun orang Bati, the worldcat summary is On esuriun, local wisdom of Bati people of Seram Island, Indonesia. (and see wikt:orang) You can search for Bati Muslim Seram and read the non-cryptid results. Near as I can tell Karl Shuker heard stories of these people and turned them in to flying monkey cryptids. You have to be very careful with anything related to cryptozoology.— eric 01:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources can be found to build an article on the mythical creature. This article is on a cryptid and there's nothing useful in it for a potential new article. Thus a "delete" is the best approach, IMO. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per discussion above. If we can dig up reliable sources discussing folk belief in this entity, then I'd be happy to see a solid article put together, but if we're stuck with a bunch of fringe sources, well, deletion is the only real option. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per the sourcing found by Bearian. I think we have enough coverage to warrant an article. There are enough books that have determined this subject is notable. Lightburst ( talk) 03:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Links to Google searches don't carry any weight at AFD. Could you list a few specific sources that could be used to establish notability? – dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The Bati are a real people [13] [14] [15] who have been considered sorcerers by their neighbors ...feared and admired throughout the central Moluccas for their powers are the highland Muslim "Bati" of east Seram, wo are said to be able to take the form of deer, fish, and birds. [16] They are not a "cryptid" or mythical creature but a people with legends surrounding them. Most of the reliable sources are in Indonesian, the cryptozoology crap is in English and floods your google search results. The origin is one unqualified person who briefly visited Seram in 1986 and sent a letter to Shuker repeating some stories. Notability for articles is determined by reliable sources.— eric 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment There are many other similar cryptozoology type articles on Wikipedia. What should we do with articles like Garkain? Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Rain (company)

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

Non notable organization without WP:CORPDEPTH & falls short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - It was all promotional or unreferenced. I removed the unreferenced sections. Then I removed the 2 references - which were both rewritten press releases. There's really nothing left. Should have been proded Smallbones_(
smalltalk) 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: I added one press piece as a reference which provides basic verification of this as a company going about its business. However it is an article about 5G rather than an in-depth discussion of this particular firm. There are also a few press items around roll-out announcements but I am not seeing the level of coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for nomination. Missvain ( talk) 20:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Siraj Daily

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

Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: No valid reason given by nom for deletion. Bigdelboy ( talk) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Lovecraft Country. RL0919 ( talk) 16:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Kingsport (Lovecraft)

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

No indication how this fictional location passes WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION. Prod declined with ' WP:ITSNOTABLE" by User:Gameron46 whom I'll kindly ask to use a better rationale. Shortly later notability tag added by User:Susmuffin. Time for AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge to Lovecraft Country, along with most of the other non-Cthulhu locations listed in {{ H. P. Lovecraft}}. The articles are mostly fluff with a huge trivial Appearance list and don't need stand-alone articles, but also contain sourced material I'd hate too lose. – sgeureka ^t•
c 12:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge the New England locations into Lovecraft Country Many of Lovecraft's works take place in a fictionalised New England. To put it succinctly, the overall topic is notable, but the individual locations are not. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 12:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment For future reference, I am referring to Arkham, Dunwich, Innsmouth, Kingsport and Miskatonic University. These articles should be merged into Lovecraft Country. Also, I suspect that R'lyeh can be merged into Cthulhu. Yuggoth is the only one without an obvious merge target. While it could be merged into Mi-Go, I doubt that the Mi-Go are independently notable themselves. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 22:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

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

I know this is an FA (like Erick from 2006) and it contributed to formation of Katrina. But let us be honest, TD Ten is NOT Katrina, and the TD itself did not even touch anyone. Bottom line: miserably fails WP:NOTABILITY. Java Hurricane 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 11:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to the season article due to lack of notability on its own. Noah^Talk 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment from principal author and FA nominator – it could reasonably be argued, particularly in the spirit of WP:NOTINHERETED, that this storm's association with Hurricane Katrina is not a sufficiently strong claim to notability. Where I probably would have felt strongly to the contrary when I created this page more than a decade ago, I'm prepared to reconsider my stance in the present. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with a long-standing featured article being summarily nominated for deletion by a user boasting 59 mainspace edits, as of this writing, with no prior attempt to gauge consensus from WP:WPTC members or WP:FAR contributors. It's highly out-of-process. That's my biggest objection to this effort. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. @Juliancolton, I would like to take the example of Erick from 2006, which was an FA but was redirected to the season page. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it does not need unneeded articles about non-notable events. I agree I'm a new user, but I also asked on WPTC Discord if this page needs to stay while making this AfD, so I believe it is not really out-of-process. -- Java Hurricane 09:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect I agree with Noah on this one... article not notable enough for its current position... Mercedes-Benz - Talk here 17:20 [UTC], Wednesday 15th January 2020
Merge and redirect While I can see where @ Juliancolton: is coming from, I feel that the project standards surrounding tropical depression's have tightened up over the years since this article was made. For example: we now put tropical depressions that have lasted for 72 hours, in an other systems section unless they have significant land impacts due to a lack of information. As a result, I do not see why Tropical Depression 10 needs to have an article. Jason Rees ( talk) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Leave The Article Alone I can see how you Wanna Delete It But It’s Not Really Harming Anything Either, I mean it could be useful Information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C500:6750:EC8A:298D:F213:E81D ( talk) 00:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- Neither of those are valid reasons for keeping, unfortunately. Luckily, no information will be lost if it's merged with the season article, as it'll stay in the relevant section, and the current article will be kept as a redirect to that section. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect, stand alone article on a minor tropical depression is not needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus (non-admin closure) Celestina007 ( talk) 07:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Baker Grace

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

Subject of article does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and also does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Though it seem like a case of WP:TOOSOON but a quick search on Google shows a couple of third party article features and other criteria that makes me feel she meet [[WP:MUSICBIO]. Bingrick ( talk) 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes general notability guidelines regarding the following sources:

"Baker Grace Offers A Wonderful Mix of Music In “See The Future”" from American Songwriter
"Baker Grace Makes A Strong First Impression With 'Wrong Kind Of People' Video" from Forbes
"Q&A | BAKER GRACE" from Flaunt
"Baker Grace Wrote an Anti-Summer Anthem" from Paper
"Teen Songstress Chloe Grace Baker’s Interactive Music Video Has a Hidden Message About Social Media" from Bedford + Bowery which is from New York Magazine
"Baker Grace can "See The Future", and it is looking good [Video"] and "Baker Grace finds her strength in being the "Illest"" from Earmilk
"Baker Grace Is Over Her "Sad Summer"" from Popdust
"The Drop: Baker Grace's "Am I Talking To You?"" from Refinery29
"Baker Grace" from 1883
"Baker Grace Sheds Her Insecurities And Proves She's The "Illest"" from Nylon
"PREMIERE: Baker Grace Reveals Anti-Feels Anthem “Numb”" from Flood Magazine

I will also leave these on the talk page of the article. Missvain ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - The article includes reliable third-party sources, as does a search on Google. The subject has received wide coverage that shows notability and thus passes WP:GNG and satisfies WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 06:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Seems to meet GNG per the above sources. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that show a clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria needed, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Notability is established based on the sources already in the article and the additional sources identified, especially by Missvain. Alansohn ( talk) 15:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep passes GNG per refs Djflem ( talk) 19:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Bane (DC Comics)#Fictional character biography. RL0919 ( talk) 16:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Santa Prisca (DC Comics)

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/ WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional plot summary. Deprodded with the sad summary " place is notable in DC Comics". Since Wikipedia is not https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/DC_Comics_Database , well, here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Though might seem notable due to its relation to DC Comics but overall it fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION Bingrick ( talk) 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Notability is not established. TTN ( talk) 12:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Bane (DC Comics)#Fictional character biography Santa Prisca is merely a part of Bane's backstory. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 14:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Bane (DC Comics) where the topic is already covered. This does not appear to have enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources for an independent article, but a redirect may be helpful as this could be viable search term and a viable redirect target already exists. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that GNG/NCORP is not met Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

PEI Media

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY or such. 2008 AfD ended up with keep because back then it was enough to show google hits. All I see in BEFORE are press releases, their rewrites, and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The company probably existed but no WP:NCORP coverage. ( In FT it just a routine mention of the name and nothing in-depth. No google hit for scmp.com, Reuters, NYtimes.) Matthew hk ( talk) 15:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Subsequent to the 2008 AfD, we also have a distinct article on Private Equity International and a PEI 50 redirect to list article content about that list. The previous AfD "keep" consensus appears to have been based more about these publications than the publisher. Considering PEI Media in itself, I am seeing routine acquisition coverage but not the evidence demonstrating that it has distinct notability. AllyD ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - per criterion WP:CSD#A7. Wily D 12:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yellano

(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. Per WP:BASIC subject also does not merit inclusion. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Serpent Men

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

Fictional race that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries. Prod declined with the assertion WP:ITSNOTABLE because its connected both to Conan and Cthulhu. Which IS pretty cool, but not sufficient given the lack of independent, in-depth sources, I am afraid. Can anyone find anything to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep They are mentioned in Lovecraft's Monsters by Neil Gaiman p.370, Blood and Thunder: The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard on p.132, and A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America on p.121, which mentions them as the probable inspiration for the Reptilian conspiracy theory. There seem to be more as well, and this was one of the first appearances of humanoid reptiles in modern fantasy, possibly? A move might be merited to Serpent Men (Kull), as the title is somewhat vague._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 11:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect - Looking at the above, I'm not seeing anything of real significance. One of them is just a few paragraphs of plot summary without any further context from what I can tell. TTN ( talk) 12:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per Zxcvbnm above, who as identified commentary Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. There's a substantial amount of nontrivial commentary on both Howard's and Lovecraft's fiction, as well as the connections between them. The commentary isn't at all limited to fannish circles; for example, there's some striking and valuable influence-tracing in the academic press volume Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. That the article may overemphasize comics usage is no reason to ignore substantive coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 23:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Let this page stay. They are a known race in the tales of Conan and have also appeared in Marvel Comics. Plus, I am with @ Zxcvbnm:, @ Casliber:, and @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: on this one. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hearsay Systems

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

noclearevidence of notability. The references do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP" most of them are mere notices, or mentions, and the others are promotional pseudo-journalism, DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails notability do to lack of indepth coverage from multiple sources that arent churnalism or press release reprints. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Adventure Parks Group

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

Company that fails WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION. Prod declined by User:DGG with "perhaps merge the parks here, or else redirect". Not sure what you want to merge, and redirect where? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. and merge articles for the two individual parks to this article for the group. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply
- Considering the sorry state of the subarticles, I am not sure how this would help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I take the opposite view of DGG above. I believe that as topics, the parks are notable and therefore those articles should remain. Whereas this company is not notable in its own right so it should be deleted. If there are guidelines that suggest the opposite I'll change my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm inclined to agree with HighKing as to notability, on INHERITED grounds. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual is not notable Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Agilan Thani

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject does not have any tier one promotion fight and has not won any major competition. Fights info are merely routine coverage. Fails WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 09:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 09:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 09:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 09:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Coverage is routine sports reporting which does not meet the GNG. Sandals1 ( talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. I agree with previous editors that the coverage is typical sports reporting--results and upcoming fight announcements. There's no indication of coverage that wouldn't be received by any professional MMA fighter. Papaursa ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Lee Roy Myers

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

He is director, producer, screenwriter in the porn industry, with porn-related awards and various porn ventures, such as the WoodRocket website. The article has no place in Wikipedia since its subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BASIC, which are the notability criteria since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete getting covered by the PR producing porno advertising industry is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply
- Comment This is not just promotional PR. The long filmography list and awards won demonstrate notability. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Not sure why WP:ENTERTAINER is being applied to him when he's a director and filmmaker. As such he satisfies criteria 3 of WP:FILMMAKER given the collective coverage of his movies in that Google News search results. Examples: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Forbes describes him as the "de facto king of porn parodies" while Vice calls him a "celebrated porn parody director" which is evidence of criteria 1. [22] [23] He and his company are also covered in these sources. [24] [25] [26] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: the sources provided above are not indicative of meeting WP:CREATIVE / WP:BIO. For example, the Observer source has this to say: “We figured we had three choices for titles: ‘Game of Bones,’ ‘Game of Moans’ or ‘Game of Thongs,” said Lee Roy Myers, who in addition to being the least visionary porn director/writer working today, is also the purveyor of WoodRocket.com, the company making the web series. (note "least visionary in the descriptor"). Vox is also an interview. I'm not convinced about them calling the subject a "celebrated porn parody director"; I'm sure that there are plenty of outlets calling various nn directors by this moniker. The other sources are equally inconvincing. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment He clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER though, and the XBIZ Award is not a random no-name promotional award. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as demonstrated by Morbidthoughts, he meets WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Full Holes [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and Fap to the Future, [32] [33] [34] [35] are just two of the notable films made by this filmmaker. On his own, he has received at least one very significant coverage. [36] --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Please indicate how exactly you assert that the films of our subject are notable per WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFOE. Were they widely distributed, have they received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, or were they of historical importance? We have not allowed (and rightly so) films to appear on Wikipedia that are far more known than our subject's output ever was. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:NFOE is not a restriction on WP:NFSOURCES or the GNG. Are you arguing the coverage of those movies in those links are inadequate in terms of the amount of coverage, independence, or reliability? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Per Morbidthoughts and Coffeeandcrumbs. He is regularly interviewed, even if representing his company, WoodRocket. He's also featured in The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies by Thomas Leitch. Missvain ( talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

But interviews are considered to be a primary source and thus are not an indication of notability! See WP:PRIMARY: Examples of primary sources include...interviews; and WP:PSTS: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yeah, there are people that feel differently per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability. When independent reliable sources decide to interview a subject for a feature, there may be a good reason why, tautological even when discussing the definition of notability. Sure, the transcript itself is primary and any contentious information from that should be considered suspect but that is an issue of verifiability, not notability. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG and is the winner of XBIZ Award, a notable merit-based award in the industry. The long list of blue links in the Filmography table clearly indicates that he is notable. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Ambrosiawater: With the exception of the Seinfeld parody, all the bluelinks in the Filmography section are pointing to the original, notable works that he produced porn parodies of. Very few of his actual works are covered, I just wanted to check you're aware of this. ~ mazca ^talk 21:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Sheikh Ashiq Ahmad

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

This seems to be somewhat of a WP:BLP1E situation, with the sources that are in the page history centering around an internet shutdown that Ahmad commented on. I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that notability is not established. I also considered salting both titles, but as the first recreation was done to avoid a copyright infringement, I'm not judging it as repeatedly recreated in the sense intended Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

SQR Ilyas

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

Non notable Islamist politician. This article is recreation of a deleted article was deleted via a deletion discussion. See the old discussion. Authordom ( talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Authordom ( talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Authordom ( talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Being president of a minor fringe political party is not an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to get the person over WP:GNG — but two of the five references here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the three that are real media are not about him for the purposes of supporting his notability, but merely mention his name glancingly in the process of being about the party. This is not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. There's clear agreement that a mass AfD isn't the right way to go about it, so I will submit individual nominations. ( non-admin closure) – dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Chair Crossing, Arizona

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

Also including:

Mass-produced GNIS stubs which fail GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Will study these. Lightburst ( talk) 03:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I only checked Coal Mine Mesa, Arizona, which I think is a keep. But I will not WP:PILEON with a !vote. Perhaps the nominator will consider withdrawing the nomination so we have a WP:SKCRIT situation. Lightburst ( talk) 13:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep This is absolutely unacceptable, as the nominator has not done anything to demonstrate any sort of WP:BEFORE searches for any of these articles. For instance, Corva is cited as the home of a man who was killed by a train, and [37] shows it was a siding where people at least worked and was possibly a company town for the Corva Lumber Company (and there's some other evidence people lived in these sorts of places, such as [38].) These WP:BEFORE searches are difficult and the GNIS isn't necessarily reliable, but just because an article is a GNIS stub doesn't mean it's not notable. In fact, I would assume a GNIS stub is notable until otherwise shown. As another example, I found [www.newspapers.com/image/515893885/ this] for Cosnino immediately. There's not a race to delete these - when I was doing nominations for Maricopa County places in Phoenix, I've taken a lot of care in order to ensure the right decision was being made. SportingFlyer T· C 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep per SportingFlyer. I also did a bit of research on these places, and Corva and Daze are both documented in a 1960 Arizona place names book, while Coal Mine Mesa is a ghost town with standing residential ruins. That's not the case for all of them - Echinique Place, for instance, seems to have never been more than a ranch - but enough of these places seem like real communities of some sort that they shouldn't all be judged as part of one bundle. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 06:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep. I spenT hours tonight going through the 11 other individual ones and am burned out. Unlike the batch of windmills done as a group, these look to be unrelated. There is no rush. Can we do them individually and 10 or so a week, not 20 at a time? MB 06:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was procedural close. Seeing as the article has already been speedied, this discussion is now moot. (non-admin closure) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 05:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Stick Figure of Hype

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

Absolutely no sources whatsoever, and definitely not notable, as it has not been covered by reliable, reputable media sources, and is just some series of videos on YouTube. ShadowCyclone talk 02:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 02:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 02:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete and close The article was already speedy deleted. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 05:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus topic is non-notable Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Laurent Weil

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST; not enough sources to justify notability, not even in the French Wikipedia entry. Most "sources" are self-published online databases, whereas other sources used in both versions of the article are passing mentions. ToThAc ( talk) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc ( talk) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ToThAc ( talk) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines. Missvain ( talk) 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There were reasonable arguments for notability being met (through different guidelines) and for it not (specific criteria and sourcing). Due to the Weak Keep I originally viewed it as a being either a No Consensus or Keep, however, the original nominator is primarily encouraging a merge, so a Keep appears reasonable. A merge discussion can be triggered if still desired. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bad Apple!!

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

I don't believe that this meets WP:NOTE; it basically serves as a collection of hardware port videos for the Alstroemeria cover. I think that a merge with "Touhou_Project#Reception_and_fanworks" would be more appropriate. — Goszei ( talk) 08:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep seems to be passing wp:gng, although wp:cleanup can be done. Shubhi89 ( talk) 11:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment (biased here having done the research that lead to the article). Not sure why this is categorised under AfD/Music; it's perhaps better suited for Afd/Technology—the topic of the article is notable because of the gradual evolution and the ultimate wider-scale use in the 2010s as a test source for under-powered computing platforms. The article nonetheless follows the chronological development from (1) obscure 1997-game chiptune in Japan; (2) 2007-pop remix; (3) 2009-independently/collaboratively developed shadow puppet animation; (4) 2010s the use of (2) + (3) together as the basis for computer/engineering audiovisual test material. At the risk of being shot down for comparisons; Lena Forsén + the Leena test image developed over time as well—a model in a male-centric magazine centerfold might not by itself notable; it is what followed over the next decades that *received* notability. There appears to be more material around Bad Apple!!; but it's slow going, as quite a bit is in Japanese; and the only other pre-existing Wikipedia article was in Chinese ( zh:Bad Apple!!). What would be useful is clear feedback as what could be expanded/improved (with sources); rather than a jumping to AfD because somewhere the page happens discusses the contextual origins as a game theme and pop song.
TL;DR, if reviewing this article and it had been authored by somebody else (not me), it would be Keep. — Sladen ( talk) 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Passes WP:NALBUM, not strongly but I think there's merit in the article and a bit of effort into the article would improve it. eeveeman ( talk) 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not meet WP:NSONG (NALBUM is for albums, which this is not, and it does not meet that criteria) as it did not chart, has not been nominated for any significant awards and certainly not covered in any way by significant artists. GNG easily fails as none the sources are reliable: blogs, open wikis, and SPSs. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per Sladen's reasoning. Even if notable as an individual song (I didn't realize awards were necessary to establish notability), it's notable as an Internet phenomenon.-- WaltCip ( talk) 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist)

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

Notability. A television meteorologist on a local channel. Big in Philadelphia. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep- Easily the most well-known weatherman in America's 4th largest tv market. In the past he has appeared on national tv (the Weather Channel). Also, co-author of an award-winning book [39]-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete appearing on "national TV" on the weather channel is not a sign of notability, and awards are a dime a dozen, nothing defining about these awards. Weathermen are not generally notable, and Schwartz is no exception to that rule. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep, per Rusf10. Notable figure and inductee in the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame... — Hunter Kahn 14:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Local tv personality, little coverage seems to extend beyond Philly. "Inductee into the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame" appears impressive at first glance, until one views the website, which looks an artifact from 1996. It is also just a local organization in Philadelphia. ValarianB ( talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - I need to do some deeper-web research on this one. Bearian ( talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since Bearian might do a little more research...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep actually a pretty notable meteorologist. It's not surprising that most of the coverage is Philly area, but it is one of the largest metro areas in the U.S. Has won several awards. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 02:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
keepof all pages to delete this should not be one of them. he is a legend in the 4th largest market in the country and has had a career that included national exposure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.31.34 ( talk) 04:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. The subject is not just some random weather guy, but it actively involved in the AMS and has spoken to them about forecasting winter storms. Bearian ( talk) 21:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Subject has commented on national news outlets about hurricanes and has written a well-received book. Notability as a meteorologist is shown through wide coverage via reliable secondary sources. Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 11:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Batutut

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

Fails GNG; has not received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. – dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Source is some crypto mirror in Archive. Zero usable content. Three alternate names are unrelated. Origin is barely a page from de:John MacKinnon, no secondary sources i can find.— eric 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete unnacceptable sourcing. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak delete - there's a lot of crap out there. I found two sources. Bearian ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails GNG. The two sources above -- Daily Mail and The Star -- are tabloids and not suitable. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Children of Húrin#Plot summary. Consensus to delete, but a redirect does seem useful for searching. RL0919 ( talk) 01:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Morwen

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

This article has been tagged as in universe for 7 years and 5 months. Every single source is a primary source. There is no evidence of real world notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 02:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(
c)}}, at 02:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Morwen is only notable from an in-universe perspective. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to The Children of Húrin#Plot summary Most of the references to Morwen I can find are in the context of brief mentions in the context of plot summaries. Morwen is frequently mentioned at the Children of Húrin page, so a redirect there would be useful. Hog Farm ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. A minor character of no real significance. I've also nominated Lalaith, her daughter. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. A minor character in a minor work.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Vagabond chapters. Pretty clear consensus here that this article does not comply with the policies regarding the use of secondary sources and probably cannot be remedied. There is a suggestion that some of the content could be reused on another article; thus redirection rather than deletion. I see there are two potential redirect targets; I picked this one as the editor who proposed the other target was referring to this target in their argument, but the redirect can be altered following the usual means (bold editing, talk page discussion, WP:RFD discussion) if people desire. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Vagabond story arcs

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

Long fan-crufty list of story arcs with no secondary sources. "Vagabond story arcs" itself isn't notable by WP:GNG and therefore the list is not notable by WP:NLIST. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Resuming a 37-volumes-long manga is difficult, but I made my best shot to resume Vagabond. To that end, I kept an eye to the Wikipedia's policies regarding how to synthesize information. I ask you not to delete a work that took me a long time and in which I respected Wikipedia's policies. In any case, I'm sure that we can synthesize it even further until no doubts arise about its merits.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
- @ Diablo del Oeste: It's heavily unsourced and I agree it enters WP:FAN territory -- it's too overly detailed. Plus, are the story arcs officially titled that way? lullabying ( talk) 02:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Unsourced? I have all the volumes sitting right next to me, how could that be unsourced? I repeat that we can synthesize even more the story (which is already heavily synthesized, despite what you would believe). Story arcs are named using the common theme in those chapters, like in any story arc from any series.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 03:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    - This kind of synthesis is largely viewed as original research, particularly as there are no secondary sources or footnotes here at all. Even disregarding notability concerns, we don’t need to stray further from Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    - @ Diablo del Oeste: It lists the volumes as sources, but they are not formatted correctly -- I recommend citing specific pages. Moreover, this article highly relies on primary sources and needs secondary sources. lullabying ( talk) 04:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources, and is just mostly WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAN. lullabying ( talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I invite all of you to buy the 37 volumes and see with your own eyes that everything written is true and that humongous efforts were done to synthesize the 37 volumes in just a couple of lines per paragraph. Buy the 37 volumes and verify yourselves.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 04:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Diablo del Oeste: Might I remind you that the onus is on you to demonstrate the verifiability of the content, not the reader. But the more important point here is the notability concern anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability? We are talking about the 20° best selling manga of all time, written by a major mangaka and which produced 37 volumes. Only notable manga series manage to reach 37 volumes.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 04:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The notability of “Vagabond story arcs”, not Vagabond (manga). Please read the guideline on list notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

They are not two separate entities that deal with two completely different contents, they talk about the same topic, and so notability is inherited from one to another, one is notable because the other is notable.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability is not inherited. The standalone list notability guideline states Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set. Here, the group is “Vagabond story arcs”. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Per the guideline Keep This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too. – All the trees in the forest, 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) this list of story arcs is notable enough.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 05:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Diablo del Oeste: You need secondary sources to establish notability of this list. lullabying ( talk) 05:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Diablo del Oeste: If you didn’t notice, that’s an example of what NOT to do. That’s from an essay called WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

REDIRECT to List of Vagabond chapters. Any information can be merged over there. This series "has sold more than 82 million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling manga series." Not sure if something that popular gets reviews somewhere for its notable arcs or not. They are sold in volume collections though, not story arcs. Dream Focus 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I don't think adding unsourced information into List of Vagabond chapters is going to improve that article. It would be one thing if the references were inline and the text verified, but they aren't. It would be better to delete this article without a redirect as the stories are indeed collected in chapters. Creating story arcs when none are defined is also WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Vagabond (manga) as with List of One Piece story arcs / Skypiea Arc. This depends on whether Vagabond has official names for their story arcs like One Piece does. The plot content can be added to List of Vagabond chapters. I don't see the original research issue as long as the plot is a summary of what was in the volumes, and that plot can be reviewed for accuracy and scrubbed for any editorializing / synthesis. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

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

[1] The first one marginally so, but due to the fact that Russia has little internet exposure (see Wikipedia:Systemic bias) I will let it slide.

[a]