Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 December	29 December >

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. Sandstein 12:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Harms[edit]

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

I tried to find additional sources, but I could not find any. Almost all of this article's sources are questionable at best. The Internet Speculative Fiction Database is the only reliable source here. Of course, one meagre source is not enough to write an article on a living person. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NAUTHOR of 7 books and a noted lecturer. Sources exist To reference this article. Perhaps I may add later. Wm335td (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Not enough RS, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I lived Upstate for 25 years, was a president of a local sf club in the Capital District, went to Torcon, and volunteered for and attended many an Albacon, yet I've never heard of this guy. I'm proud to have known Jan Howard Finder. If Wm335td has better sources, please come up with them now. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I have found that he has written 6 books. One of his books is cited in Weird Fiction in Britain 1880–1939. Looks like Worldcat says his book The encyclopedia Cthulhiana is in 32 libraries. Wm335td (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Move to Draft until additional sources are added as promisedGeorgiamarlins (talk) 21:41, 4 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) 00:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Fofang[edit]

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

Fails GNG. She's currently a PhD student, and there's no independent coverage that would substantiate her inclusion on Wikipedia, as commendable as her actions are. Her only apparent publication, "Implementing a 15-week AI-education program with under-resourced families across 13 global communities", has not been cited a single time. As for general coverage, I found the following: an article discussing aid in Cameroon, and not just Fofang's initiative; a single sentence within an article that is a list of women promoting STEM education in Africa; a single sentence stating she will participate in a 3D printing event; a blog post describing her among several "African women in tech"; another 3-sentence paragraph in another blog post about Girl's education in Cameroon; This one is the best one I could find. A Reuters article about "getting Cameroon's women into work", mentioning her thrice among other initiatives, and quotes her once. Summing up, she fails general notability, not to mention NACADEMIC. She certainly could become notable in a few years' time. PK650 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources independent of her. As pointed out above, her publication was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy citizen of the world but no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While she know doubt is a wonderful person doing great work in the world, and we assume good faith that the creator means well, she's not a leading scholar in STEAM. I've taught forensics and STEAM for two decades, and am on the cusp of receiving my own graduate degree, and I've never heard of her until just now. We have almost never recognized non-tenured faculty as notable. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 3 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. Speedy deleted by Berean Hunter, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Keagon[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO. Two of the three sources cited in the article do not discuss the subject. The first source is an unreliable self-published wordpress source. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:31, 28 December 2019 (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/2019 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs better sourcing but the subject is notable locally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djames11170 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~Keep~~ in accordance with WP:BEFORE #2, as it is the case that this article was recently created, contributors should be given more time to develop the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djames11170 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only are allowed one vote in an AfD. GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking significant enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. The article is bordering on speedy delete territory if you ask me. GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources provided, none found. Obvious COI editor. I've removed some unsourced material ("womanizer" junk), but left other material so that this can play out the long way. Kuru (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelmyblog[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Two pieces of churnalistic press coverage in 2007 and 2008; WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage since then. The article has never been much better than this. Previous AFD kept partly on the basis of a Sun advertorial. If anyone can find meaningful RS coverage for Fuelmyblog ... David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Classic startup. The Guardian media section reference is a press release.scope_creep^Talk 23:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - extremely vague claims, poor sourcing, and inconsistent citation style - as well as WP:GNG concerns. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Georgiamarlins (talk) 21:48, 4 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. No consensus to delete, and a uniform consensus that it meets notability (both GNG and SNG) (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whip It (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There are a couple of album reviews and no other sources that establish its notability and it takes more than that to meet the criteria, since it needs to be articles only covering the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song charted on five separate national charts. I think you need to rethink your nomination process. I feel like there’s been a bunch of failed or withdrawn nominations coming from you, and now you’re kind of clogging up AFD with noms... Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to read WP:NM again, charts indicate that a song might be notable, not that is notable. Yes I withdrawn nominations, as those articles were made notable and I did others notable as well...your point? Not a valid argument. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m well aware of the notability guidelines. And that’s exactly why I’m saying keep. I don’t believe it’s plausible for a song to get substantial national airplay in five separate nations, and then not have a handful sources in existence afterwards. It’s not realistic at all. It’s why one of your last nominations like this unanimously failed. There are so many bad, unsourced, non-charting song stub articles in existence. Go do something constructive and work on those, not well developed, nationally charting songs like this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it. Not a valid argument, another fallacy. Yes there are, you could do the same, another fallacy. Once more, show me the sources in existance that suggest it deserves being a standalone article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extraordinarily nonsensical nomination of a song that has appeared in multiple charts, and has been reviewed in Billboard, The Guardian, and others. Nominator may wish to step into a different topic area, as music notability isn't in their wheelhouse. Zaathras (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it did, in album reviews "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid nomination rationale given. The song has received multiple non-trivial mentions and has charted in several countries. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions are in the context of album reviews. Charting does not estabilish notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I specifically challenge the notion that charting doesn't infer notability. My reading of the consensus is that charting does confer notability. The nom reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's a one of the filthiest ditties ever, but that's not a reason to delete. It peaked at 23 on the Billboard chart. Minaj has performed it live in large concert arenas, getting fans to sing along. A performance of the song with a boy garnered some continuing significant coverage, as has the video. The song has also become a staple of college drag shows for some bizarre reason: see here, and there, and yonder. I've linked a dozen sources that I found with a few clicks. FWIW, I'm not a fan. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I mean, I get it if it something like charting at number 87 on one country’s single genre chart - maybe I could see some reason for skepticism there. But multiple National all-format charts? Come on. Also coming from a non-fan. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only presentable articles are the Billboard and XXL, with quite narrow paragraphs on the song (1-2 lines maximum). The rest is either fancruft or trivia, as most of the songs of recent albums are performed live and once more it doesn't concurr with the notability guidelines, some random guy dancing to a song seems quite trivia to me and a performance by a non notable singer is trivia as well. I don't care if you are a fan or not, honestly doesn't add anything to the discussion. Thanks for the two links. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Low charting does not impress me, let alone convince me that any song should have an article, despite the vague criteria at WP:NSONG, but there's enough additional content to merit a keep based on WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All over the charts. I'm surprised it was nominated. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:51, 4 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. There do seem to be sources added that indicate GNG but editors dont currently support these as meeting GNG. This seems likely a result that they are not linked to online sources and are not referencing specific sections of the article. Personally I feel that this article could be recovered if written in more detail with the sources presented backing up more concrete statements. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tor-Kristian Karlsen[edit]

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

Non-notable football related person who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Some references provided, but SIGCOV is not reached, IMO. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, director of sports in AS Monaco FC et al. Gee, I wonder if that's why he has a French Wikipedia entry among others? I added some more non-routine, independent sources to the article and for the moment I attached them to the lead sentence so they are distinguishable. A three-page feature in Norway's largest newspaper etc etc. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lame of you to totally disregard the sources in the article. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 21:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-argument. Geschichte (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siji Kumar Sadanandan[edit]

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

Fails basic notability criteria for athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written but he is an Asian Games medalist, notable enough to me. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Asian Games bronze medalist. ミラ P 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Asian Games medalists are notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Asian Games bronze medalist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and Asian Games (elite international competition) medalist.

Curnews (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rommel[edit]

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

Fails basic notability criteria for athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a poorly sourced stub.TH1980 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written but he is an Asian Games medalist, notable enough and btw what's the "basic notability criteria" ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsen1248 [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Asian Games bronze medalist. ミラ P 20:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BASIC Georgiamarlins (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and Asian Games (elite international competition) medalist.

Curnews (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Lists of actors who played one-time characters on a show (admittedly some actors played several different one-time characters). Sourcing to tv.com doesn't help, and IMDb probably does a better job of this than any site on the web. Mission: Impossible (1966 TV series) relied in guest stars quite a bit, but is it sufficient for these lists to pass WP:LISTN? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters was about a similar situation, except that it was in a character-played-by-actor format rather than actor-playing-character, and with some more plot details. Still, it ended with delete .– sgeureka ^t•c 22:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment It appears the season articles of the show already do a fine job of linking to the guest actors: it provides better context, and if this AfD ends in deletion, nothing would get lost per se. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists are indiscriminate collections of actors who only appeared in a few episodes. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the single-episode Simpsons characters AfD, I'll qualify this as a "sad delete". Ultimately, we need other sources to treat this subject as a group first, and I'm not seeing anything like that in my search. A few bits on specific guest stars, but not a list. Almost all of the content I'm seeing is in fact based on this very article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites. There would need to be sources that treat these subject matters as a group, and since that does not exist, there is really nothing to support this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every one time appearance on the show does not need to be listed in directory form. There are 2 redlinks, and I do not have the patience to make sure all the links are to the right people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 13:52, 4 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. – bradv🍁 05:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China Unicom Hong Kong[edit]

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

A company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Per WP:overlap it can be mentioned in China Unicom, as it is a mobile virtual network operator without an actual bandwidth. Also, the creator just ignore they draft was declined in Draft:China Unicom Hong Kong. (The same user also created Draft:CUniq HK) Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAlthough indeed China Unicom Hong Kong is currently a mobile virtual network operator, it is still the 5th largest operator in Hong Kong with over 800K subscribers, which proves it is notable. Also, MVNO company takes over weighty market share in Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.200.166.220 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — 42.200.166.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NCORP needs in-depth coverage from reliable secondary source. There is no in-depth coverage for the HK operation. How many customer is trivia . Matthew hk (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there're coverages from Hong Kong mainstream media, such as [2],[3], [4], and [5]. All are in Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.200.167.212 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — 42.200.167.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please point out which articles are in-depth enough for WP:NCORP. All of the articles were about the discount, owing wage, incident that unable to provide service and other routine coverage. Matthew hk (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that link 1 can support the coverage of this topic.

COI: I am a China Unicom Hong Kong individual user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.80.57 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — 203.160.80.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is just a reporting for a survey conducted by Consumer Council (Hong Kong), comparing the MVNO and MNO. It certainly not a significant coverage about China Unicom's Hong Kong subsidiary/business. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by WP:COI guideline. as a customer it is not a direct COI violation. But your ip is from China Unicom (Hong Kong), which we can't tell you are customer or COI violation that your are the staff and editing this Afd using your office ip, as they may shared the same pool. Matthew hk (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some off-topic. Apparently the mystery ip hooper, which seems related to 42.200.167.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 42.200.118.60, 42.200.119.104, were all ips from "business customer" of PCCW (HKT Limited), plus 218.250.224.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that from Netvigator brand of PCCW. Are they any COI and/or related to page creator, requires SPI to confirm it is logout edit or not. Matthew hk (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add 42.200.248.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the suspicious pool. Matthew hk (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 42.200.181.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Matthew hk (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultra primary references to own companies advertising. Classic fail WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep^Talk 21:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: Have you informed SPI about your list above? scope_creep^Talk 21:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logout edit are presumably (borderline?) good faith. It just quite obviously it is a case that they hopping ip for (paid? COI?) editing. SPI usually is for socking by multiple registered accounts. Since the page creator the registered account had not been blocked, it has little merit to file SPI as it is not an obvious block evasion. Those "off-topic" rather a better replacement of just tagging with {{spa}} or {{Page creator}}. Matthew hk (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 05:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Anselm Bolton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources only account for passing mentions and being a priest doesn't confer notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, perhaps? Have nothing at this time but feel perhaps more can by dug up. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at most. The real problem is that this is a stub, emphasising his status as a Catholic Priest (which is NN), rather than as an academic, where he might be notable as a church historian. The reference to an Oxford master's degree is odd, as that university's masters are in fact first degrees followed by non-academic formalities. I would have expected his subject and college to be named (which they are not). Being "a" professor in America is again NN, but without a fuller list of his publications, it is impossible to judgen notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find two reviews of his book Church reform in 18th century Italy (in Archives de sociologie des religions and The Catholic Historical Review). There was an obituary in The Guardian [6] which does not mention his conversion to protestantism, and in fact says that he retired to a Benedictine abbey. It gives his places of birth and death, but doesn't name the Oxford college he studied at (though it says he studied history and did a Dip.Ed.). Several American newspapers have advertisements or notices of him giving talks in 1963, describing him as a "former Catholic priest", "converted to Evangelical faith, 1962" [7], [8], [9]. It's definitely the same person (educated at Oxford, Paris, Louvain, taught history, French, German and Russian at St Bede's, Manchester) - interesting that the Guardian obit does not mention a conversion, and says he taught in the US at a Benedictine school at St. Louis, while this article says he taught at Houghton College, New York (where, presumably, he was teaching when he wrote the article which is the only source). The Houghton College paper indeed welcomes him to the campus in 1963 [10]. Intriguing, but not so far enough to meet any notability guidelines, I don't think, though his article about Pandeism seems to be quoted a bit. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Guardian seems to require subscription to see. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like a delete so far, but since some sources were found, giving a relist to allow further discussion and research.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete not seeing a serious claim to notability here: priests who are authors are a shilling a dozen. Mangoe (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep, his Church Reform in 18th Century Italy: (The Synod of Pistoia, 1786) was included as part of an anthology. An article of his not mentioned so far was The Emperor Julian Against “Hissing Christians”. As for his impact, you can see a peaking in the term "pan-deism" in the five or so years after his pan-deism article: [ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28Pan-deism%29&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28Pan%20-%20deism%29%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2C(Pan%20-%20deism)%3B%2Cc0 ] If he wasn't a priest and had written all that, he'd be notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while NN as a priest, it's clear he's notable as an academic. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: clearly notable as an academic but delete? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as an academic as shown in the additional references in reliable sources identified in this discussion which show a clear pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG, AUTHOR and PROF. James500 (talk) 01:36, 5 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School of International Studies in Sciences and Arts[edit]

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

A non-notable school which fails WP:NORG, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield School Karachi[edit]

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

Some mentions, but fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation College, Haripur[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation College, Westridge[edit]

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

No sources found. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A lack of cited coverage in reliable sources leads to a consensus that this fails the notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 23:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation College Sagri[edit]

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

Nothing in the coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent coverage or documented notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation School Bilal Town[edit]

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

Nothing in the coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the available sources do not show that Guri meets the general notability guideline or the subject-specific notability guidelines for actors or singers. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guri (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 fails WP:GNG. He is an actor that fails WP:NACTOR, a singer that fails WP:SINGER. Furthermore this article has once been deleted in an AFD which can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guri (singer) Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still as non-notable as when this article was discussed last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources thus failing general notability criteria, subject also fails notability criteria for singers. Also, per this vote from last AfD, which still applies. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

There are many reliable sources available which are enough for notebility. You should check once. His songs also appeared on apple music chart and Gaana's top 50. There are many possible sources. This is my opinion.. otherwise as you feel right. Thanks Virenderthind2019 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:45, 5 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. – bradv🍁 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions[edit]

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

When readers see a link to the article they would expect more up to date info - so it wastes their time clicking it. I asked on the talk page but it seems no one, including me, thinks the article worth updating. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Chidgk1. This is historical data pertained to be recent. Not enough added value to justify an article. At this time, the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions should suffice. I am not against the idea of this article, just against the realization. For example the per capita version of this article with 2017 data is fine. We should use more recent data or WP:TNT. gidonb (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not that out of date, and it's still useful. It's marked as needing an update, which seem sufficient. -- Beland (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I calculated right the 2017 value for India is 1083 which is 24% more than the 875 in this article. I have not checked any other countries but as India is so significant I am not sure I need to.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, how much did China go up by the same calculation? gidonb (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb From List of countries by GDP (nominal) take the value in the 2017 column. Then divide by the 2017 value in List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions. So 12,234,781 divided by 12454.711 = 982 which is more than double the 2006 figure unless I made a mistake. This doubling seems plausible given the economic shift from industry to services.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yep, that's plausable. Now many tables contain some historic data alongside more current figures. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire. But being able to offer ONLY 2006 data, as if it were current, is not ok. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised another problem with this article is that it does not cover all greenhouse gases. So countries with high methane emissions, such as New Zealand, are misrepresented.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the similarity noted above, there doesn't seem to be any notable sourcing of this topic online besides the report provided. No news articles even mention this ranking (kind of surprising since this looks like an interesting statistic in general). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Silmarillion#Development of the text. No desire to Keep this article given fail of GNG; lean to accept Redirect. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tol Eressëa[edit]

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

Fictional island only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable in-universe or in the real world. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Silmarillion#Development of the text which already describes everything that needs to be said about this fictional place. The article itself fails GNG, with its sole reference being primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Silmarillion#Development of the text Tol Eressëa is an unstudied part of Tolkien's legendarium. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Silmarillion#Development of the text Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beleriand#Doriath. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doriath[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional realm. Fails WP:GNG as only mentions are in passing. Only inline sourced to primary sources and is entirely a plot summary. Hog Farm (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beren and Lúthien. The article fails WP:GNG, with all references being primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beleriand#Doriath Doriath is one of the most obscure realms in Tolkien's legendarium. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beleriand#Doriath Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have its own entry in the Tolkien Encyclopedia, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few fictional locations merit an article, and this is clearly not one that does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We've deleted a lot of fancruft, but I never thought I'd see North Korean political fancruft at AfD. Sandstein 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the further improvement of the health service[edit]

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

Non-notable letter. I can only find one source mentioning this letter, and that is the source in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete together with On further improving party ideological work and Let us create more revolutionary films based on socialist life. This is non-notable nonsense, WP:NOT classic. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 5 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 All that glitters is not gold. Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that is gold does not glitter[edit]

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

Short poem used as a plot element in a work of fiction. Aside for the titular line being used as a common quote, I can't find anything that demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG and isn't really an independent work of poetry, so the notability guidelines for poetry don't apply here. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All that glitters is not gold as a likely misquote. Tolkien's poem is mentioned there already. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All that glitters is not gold#In popular culture This poem is a very minor part of The Lord of the Rings ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Halbared (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Halbared: I respect your !vote, but could you please explain your rationale for keeping the article? Hog Farm (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I had to look this up a while back and this page helped me answer a question. I looked at the other page, it doesn't have the info this one does. It has enough information pertaining only to the Tolkien poem that it was an aid to me and should be kept in case others need a page for similar queries. Halbared (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like Merge the useful information into whatever article we're redirecting to. 79.65.232.207 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — 79.65.232.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete poems are not inherently notable, especially when buried deep in a book. Repeating them does not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safiya al Bahlani[edit]

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

With just 7 mentions on Google News she doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Also most of these mentions are at the single source (Times of Oman), so probably her notability is very local. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is significant coverage in Muscat Daily, Gulf News, and Times of Oman. The Gulf News article is mostly an interview, but I believe that there is sufficient coverage outside of the interview for it to qualify as a solid contributor for GNG. This is all far more internet coverage than what we normally expect from someone from Oman, let alone a woman. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 22:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that WP:SIGCOV is met with features about her in Oman Magazine, Gulf News,Times of Oman and Oman Observer, as well as mentions in numerous other sources. I wouldn't say this is local, considering it is coverage of a whole country. Achaea (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG, has significant coverage in several reliable sources. I added the Times of Oman and Oman Magazine citations to the article. Netherzone (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is well founded by sustained coverage in a variety of national media over several years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J947 and Achaea. Coverage establishes GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage and meets GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of WP:SIGCOV. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 13:53, 4 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. Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Sousveillance Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to promote the event, but not so blatantly as to warrant a CSD. The article cite 6 refs, but they are only used once, seemingly in order to appear well-cited. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Sousveillance" is real, but "World Sousveillance Day" is not. See this search on the term: [11].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:01, 1 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) ミラ P 21:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari[edit]

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

With 58 press mentions on Google News this person doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Also the style of the article is somewhat promotional. There are some trivial mentions at trusted sources, like "Earlier, the prime minister appointed Sayed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari as his special assistant on overseas Pakistanis and human resource development with the status of minister of state" The Express Tribune, but it is not enough to establish notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A Pakistani member of cabinet who seems to be better known as Zulfi Bukhari. Search for that name turns up plenty of articles, including this one. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also see a lot of news coverage for this person. Notable, in my view. Promotional style of the article can easily be fixed. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN A Pakistani cabinet member WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pousson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any significant coverage, and WP:NGRIDIRON, as the subject did not play in a game professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Also fails NGRIDIRON. Lepricavark (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no notable gridiron footballer - fails WP:NGRIDIRON notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks adequate coverage. If he does meet the general gridiron football notability, that clearly needs to be tightened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG (no showing of significant coverage), WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games), or WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or national coverage). Cbl62 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist to show notability. WP:NEXIST In addition he passes WP:ANYBIO because he is in the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame and National Honor Society. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a College Football Hall of Fame inductee. If he were, he wold pass WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may be confusing the College Football Hall of Fame with the NFF National Honor Society. Pousson was elected to the Honor Soceity, which "is comprised of college football players from all divisions of play who each maintained a 3.2 GPA or better." (source) Not exactly an award notable enough for a player to have a Wikipedia article, considering that 344 other players were recognized in just that year. 400spartans (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG - non-notable footballer. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 1 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Winkler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Played in the German Football League, which isn't considered a major gridiron football league, and in NFL Europe, which was a developmental league. The only news coverage I could find was from this article from The Tennessean. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no notable American football player - fails WP:NGRIDIRON notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practice squad does not qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON, and there are no college accomplishments to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Finally, I agree with Eagles247 that one isolated feature story from The Tennessean (essentially a human interest piece about the NFL International Development Practice Squad program) is not enough to pass WP:GNG. 01:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Brader[edit]

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

Failed WP:PROD (WP:DEPRODed with a "Consider merge or redirect to The Tribe (1999 TV series) as preferred WP:ATD." message.) IOW, even the DEPROD message effectively acknowledges that this WP:BLP is a clear WP:NACTOR fail, that also fails WP:BASIC. ~~Note that I have no objection to a "redirect" to The Tribe (1999 TV series) result.~~ But this in a non-notable actor subject, and does not merit a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems appropriate as this may well be a search term. In fact, that’s what you could have done (you were given “permission”) instead of taking it to AfD. Schwede 66 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A note about that: as List of The Tribe characters has been deleted, Brader is now not mentioned anywhere in a (current) The Tribe article on Wikipedia – thus, after thinking about it, redirecting to The Tribe (1999 TV series) seems dubious to me... And, no – taking this to AfD was the best course of action, as it'll make any outcome "official" and thus not challengeable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. I agree that in that case, deletion is the appropriate action. Schwede 66 16:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article has had no significant roles aside from a two small guest roles which occurred at the start of her career nearly 20 years ago. The article fails WP:NACTOR.Rain the 1 08:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough roles or coverage to maker her notable yet.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:08, 3 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) 17:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Callica[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for actors. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test for actors requires evidence of distinctions such as noteworthy acting awards, and/or evidence that he's received enough media coverage about his work as an actor to clear WP:GNG. But the only roles listed here are supporting or bit parts, not major roles for the purposes of NACTOR #1, and the referencing is entirely to bad sources that aren't support for notability, like IMDb and blogs. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing to support it, but nothing in this article is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per that Percy movie was a big hit.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not transferable, which is why WP:NACTOR exists, and I'm not seeing how that is met here. The sources are iffy, too many interviews which do not help establish notability and bad sources on top of that. Ravensfire (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary source coverage that is indepdent to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . May be early career, but news coverage in insufficient to establish notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:06, 3 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) 17:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ainsworth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Never appeared in a professional game. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found one article from The Arizona Republic, but nothing else to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable gridiron footballer - fails WP:NGRIDIRON notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable gridiron football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage found in the Arizona Republic (as noted above by Eagles247) but not in other reliable, independent sources. If additional source are found containing significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifan Ifeanyi Michael[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources hence failing WP:GNG. A before I conducted shows him mentioned on several gossip blogs with none of them being close to reliable. He fails WP:ANYBIO as I don’t see him winning any notable award and furthermore he’s an alleged actor but falls short of WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Probably a vanity page, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in secondary sources. I was only able to find primary sources about him. The subject has only produced one notable film and that isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject at this time, fails WP:GNG. Producing a notable film like Lotanna is not enough for us to have an article about him. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:05, 3 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. Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DPS Innovations[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, PR. Кронас (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism is the life of our people[edit]

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

No indication at all that the speech was of particular significance historically; title betrays nothing remarkable Sirlanz (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable person gave a speech. I don't see a claim of notability for the speech here, and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the speech in detail. There are mentions of readings of the speech and a brief excerpt is used as a chapter lead-in "Tyranny of the Weak: North Korea and the World, 1950–1992", but no real discussion. Per that book the full title appears to be "Socialism is the Life of Our People: Talk with Senior Officials of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea." so it appears not even to have been a public speech. Meters (tlk) 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- At most a redirect to Kim Jong-il bibliography, where the speech is mentioned (just a red link with no description). Meters (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dorsetonian (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a page already speedy deleted here . Deletetion and salting recommended, per previous deletion and crystal. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You failed to mention the previous deletion discussion was from December 2008. 2020 is three days away, and this AfD will run for at least seven days. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no point in deleting this article now, since it will actually be 2020 before this AfD is scheduled to close. The previously deleted version of this article from 2008 consisted of what I assume was a list of imaginary future albums envisioned by a Disney Channel fan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title suggests is a retroactive look back on 2020, and as you just stated, 2020 will start in a few days. This is pure crystal. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should actually read the first point of WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Lugnuts You're correct about that. I totally withdraw my nomination. Feel free to snow close. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep, because 2020 is 3 days away, and Dead & Gone should be released in less than one week. Also, why was I not notified on my talk page about this AFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The retrospective look back argument is not valid, because this article is part of a series, such as 2019 in music and 2018 in music, and the articles in this series are updated during the year as events occur. CRYSTAL does not apply, because 2020 is about to start in three days, and it will for sure have music. Salting this article like suggested is ridiculous, as, even if deleted, this article is the next logical installment in a series of articles, and the names of the articles should be kept consistent. Hog Farm (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Terrible nomination. There’s plenty of reliable sourcing for a year that’s mere days away. There’s already well-sourced sub-genre articles already for the year. If absolutely nothing else, it could serve as a “table of contents” type article for those ones for now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Al Abdullah[edit]

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

Non-notable singer where the corresponding article has been deleted on ar.wiki. Paid spam following the traditional pattern of creating an en.wiki page as a backup for when the ar.wiki page is deleted since we can't read the sourcing and will just assume it's notable because it has links. Sourcing is based on one song/event based on the analysis of native speakers I have talked to. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and already deleted on arwiki --Alaa :)..! 15:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disastrously written and formatted page about a clearly NN musician, who's just run of the mill . Bearian (talk) 22:43, 3 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. The article has been significantly expanded since the nomination and initial delete votes; with no further arguments being made to delete in the last 5 days. If canvassing has affected this discussion, its primary result appears to have been a significant improvement in the article's content and sourcing. ~ mazca ^talk 16:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article duplicates information already in Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Yang has few endorsements compared with other candidates, so this split is unwarranted and will add to the difficulty of maintaining endorsements. - Mr X 🖋 14:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 14:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 14:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Simplifying the maintenance process would be a reasonable if there were many pages to maintain. However, the number of active candidates is quite limited, and the number of top tier candidates is even more limited. This candidate is a finalist for what is, unfortunately, the most important democratic contest in the world; this means the content is both notable and globally relevant. If this article is delisted then all candidates endorsements pages should be redirects. Harmlesshumanist (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which actually has more endorsements for Yang listed than this article does. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article duplicates information from Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. This article is short and is not likely to be expanded at this point in the election. This article should be deleted instead of merged because Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries lists more Yang endorsements than this article. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect for the reasons stated above. I do question whether these lists of endorsements are generally worthy of a Wikipedia article generally as Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material, but as long as they are properly sourced, there is no inherent harm to the project and could have some lasting historical value. --Enos733 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Come on, this is nowhere in comparison to Biden, Sanders or Warren's endorsement pages. Very few endorsements for it to merit a page. Redirect this to Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unjustified content fork, but we do not need to list this either, only cover ones that have gotten substantial notice in the main article on Yang.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect for the reasons stated above. --NL19931993 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the above comments were made, the page has been edited to include all of the candidate's endorsements (the majority of which were missing). The page now has more endorsements than on the Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article and I believe there are now enough endorsements to warrant there being a separate page for them. --TheEditor867 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has numerous endorsements and citations from reliable sources. Regarding what others have said about this article not likely to expand further, I remind people WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Quite frankly, the page is not some trivial article listing single digit endorsements. There are 39 endorsements and 31 citations at the time of my comment and I highly doubt this this the full list. If you want to delete this page, then the argument simply because that the other candidates' endorsement pages are longer doesn't fly. We don't go on article length here, we go on substance. If we want to delete this article then we should also delete the other candidates' endorsement articles as well. Transcendence (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember that deletion is a last resort. Valid deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved. Clearly this article was able to be improved and has been. Unfortunately, this feels like a politically motivated nomination for deletion. The good news is that the article was improved and is now clearly surpassing the standards required by Wikipedia. --Brandorr (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is some canvassing going on.[12] - Mr X 🖋 20:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no canvassing going on. The Reddit post is a call to the community to update an outdated page which is in line with Wikipedia. There is no spreading of political messages nor promotion of the Democratic Candidate. The endorsements listed on this Wiki page are supposed to be cited from reliable sources. As long as it meets those criteria, I do not consider it as canvassing. In case endorsements are inappropriately referenced, I think that particular endorsement should be deleted. -- Stoepkrijtske (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been substantially expanded since 30 December 2019, and is well cited. 70.162.195.151 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)— 73.129.1.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is well-cited and these lists have historical value. 73.129.1.205 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)— 73.129.1.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - this is practically a WP:ODD article ready to wear. The nominations, and the bizarre list, is itself notable; the coverage is significant. FWIW, I'm not a fan and do not endorse Wang. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is severe canvassing going on as noted above. A post on "r/YangForPresidentHQ" with over 2.5k upvotes links here so closing admin be wary. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has now been updated significantly with both content and reliable citations since its proposed deletion on 28-12-19 and should meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. This topic also has a large amount of coverage so it can be improved and updated in the future. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 01:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Comment - I would not categorize the recent edits as "canvassing" since the reddit post in question is well-intentioned and suggests its users to only contribute if they can make quality edits. It also urges its users to follow the rules and cite properly. I would also point out that WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and that as a subject becomes more popular, there are much higher chances people write a wikipedia page about it. See Wikipedia:Notability. Nothing stops other supporters from creating a page for their candidate of choice. If neutrality and objectivity is maintained, there is no reason to delete this page. Wiki-asd-97 (talk) 05:01, 5 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 Water cooling#Computer usage. Sandstein 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T-Line[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced for 12 years, obscure nick-name for a plumbing fitting, no hits in the first 30 items Google Books showed up so low notability, neologism that only exists here on the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the case-modder's how-to guide. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't find anything more than a brief mention in a very small number of references, so there is no indication that this is notable or that any of the current text is verifiable. I wouldn't say it's a neologism, but there definitely isn't enough content out there to use for an article. ComplexRational (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficient hits, I'm fine with a redirect per Mark Viking (also noting that material can be added and properly cited there, without it being necessary to copy from the original article), but I stand by my original delete !vote if a redirect isn't suitable. ComplexRational (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into something, probably something new, on PC cooling or high-performance PC cooling. There's plenty of scope in that as a topic and although this is a bit scant as a stand-alone, it would be reasonable as a section within broader coverage on water-cooling PCs (or indeed laser cutters). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the whole article is uncited and two searches for sources found nothing, I don't see how any of this content is worth merging. I'd support an addition elsewhere if it could be cited, but that doesn't seem to be the case right now. ComplexRational (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Water_cooling#Computer_usage, where it is mentioned. A quick search for "T-Line" water cooling -wikipedia on Google yields many hits, so this is obviously not a Wikipedia neologism. T-lines are discussed briefly as a bleed mechanism in PC water cooling in a 2007 MaximumPC article, a brief mention in a 2008 PCWorld article, and in a 2006 overclockers.com article. I don't think these are enough to reach GNG thresholds, but basic facts about the device and methods are verifiable. Preserving verifiable material is our policy per WP:ATD, so a selective merge of the basics to the water cooling article, perhaps a sentence or two, seems reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Water cooling#Computer_usage as per reasons provided above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingDisks (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Panda[edit]

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

Not convinced this company passes WP:NCORP. 4 out of 9 references relate to a sponsorship deal with QPR football club, and the other references leave me unconvinced. Also there are neutrality issues here: "Royal Panda has been praised for its promotions and wide selection of games". Uhooep (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2019 (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)} 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial coverage only. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ciao, creator so won't vote. There has been a fair amount of other coverage since creation; plenty in a Google News search. The notability part is I think a little unfair, as that's only part of the sentence and the second part criticises the company. To be fair, the criticism was toned down in an edit by someone I presume was linked to the company. Reflecting critical reception, though, isn't against NPOV — compare with most articles on films, for example. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 15:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leave It to Beaver characters. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Leave It to Beaver cast members[edit]

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

Deprodded. Largely redundant to Leave It to Beaver characters, which already names all main, supporting and recurring cast members. This leaves extra info in the sections on "Other cast members" (where IMDb does a better job) and "Others in unnamed roles" (for real?!), plus what actor is already dead. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING; also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bad Girls cast members, which ended in delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly blue links so this serves navigation and informational services per WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list article, blue links aid in navigation, too long to fit in the main article. Most of the blue linked names are not listed in the other article. Dream Focus 16:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While the above two make a good point, WP:OVERLAP applies to these kinds of articles. ミラ P 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Leave It to Beaver characters. As mentioned already, there is already a lot of overlap between the two, and I really don't see any real reason why this would need to be split into two articles. All of the cast members playing major characters are already included in the character list, and any that may be missing can be added in. Most, if not all, of the cast members listed in both of the "Other" sections really do not need to be included, though, particularly as the information is just being sourced (i.e. copied) directly from IMDB. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Leave It to Beaver characters (which should be renamed List of Leave It to Beaver characters). All of the main cast and recurring characters are already listed there, with the exception of Dana Dillaway (who only appeared in two episodes and as different characters, so no merge for her) and Keith Taylor. Of the rest, only reasonably well-known actors, i.e. Lyle Talbot, Lee Meriwether and I suppose Majel Barrett for Star Trek fans, should be merged. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Entirely redundant, and nothing to merge as there's no sourced content (only imdb, which is not a reliable source). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Both articles are long enough to be standalone articles and neither is a duplicate of the other. Many of the entries in the the list under discussion are non-notable and unsourced but that may be due to lack of effort rather than their being essentially non-notable. In any case, this list has been fairly well maintained, esp. wrt deaths being noted. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the characters page. Anything we need to say on the cast can be said there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. Not enough info to keep an article on the subject. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Lacey[edit]

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

The subject was an archdeacon but after searching I cannot find anything else that makes him notable. He has a who’s who entry for being an archdeacon but this is not notability for wikipedia. Archdeacons could be notable for other reasons but this one does not seem to be. Page appears abandoned by its creator. Sirfurboy (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Lack of sourcing. Also, could not find additional info when I searched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we able to see whose sock puppet this eminates from?Bashereyre (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A check of yesterday's list of Articles for Deletion shows that this person commented on all of them, so I doubt it was anyone associated with this subject in particular. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youBashereyre (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions[edit]

Also see:

Bashereyre (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete archdeacons are not inherently notable, and the coverage does not rise to the level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. If possible, the content should be merged there as well. James500 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) ~~Keep.~~ Satisfies criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO, with article in A & C Black's Who's Who. James500 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Apart from Who's Who, there is other coverage in Crockford's Clerical Directory, The Church of England Year Book and the New Year Honours of 1946 (mention in dispatches). I am having a lot of difficulty searching for this because of the high level of background noise (there seems to be another Archdeacon Lacey). James500 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Just a reminder that WP:ANYBIO does not establish notability. It specifically says: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The subject is in Who's Who because he was an archdeacon, but WP has a higher standard. Per WP:RELPEOPLE, only bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RELPEOPLE is an essay. ANYBIO is a guideline. An essay cannot overide a guideline. James500 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that answers my point. ANYBIO does not establish notability. The guideline explicitly makes that point. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It answers the final two sentences of your point. Is there some other reason why he should not have an article? James500 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't answer that. ANYBIO does not establish notability in this case because the entry in Who's Who is there because he is an archdeacon, which is not notable for Wikipedia. I am repeating myself, so I will say no more on that. You ask why he shouldn't have an article - that is down to notability. Why shouldn't anyone have an article? Because (1) Notability is the WP standard and (2) what you end up with is thousands upon thousands of perma-stub pages because there is nothing more that can be said. Such people can definitely be mentioned on Wikipedia. A collation of archdeacons in a diocese could list and describe him, but there is no benefit in having a bio page that has nothing more than was already found in the Who's who entry. Even Who's Who doesn't give a whole blank page to every person - because they understand that what is important in satisfying the reader's information requirement. In Wikipedia, stubs do not do this. What you need is a page that collects information, presents it clearly and fully in context, and for less notable people, that means being described in a page that places them within the only context for which they are known. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. I find no coverage of this person, beyond a brief announcement of being appointed to a position. I don't think that Who's Who, even if not the paid-for type, is an equivalent to a Dictionary of National Biography, and so doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO anyway. His role of archdeacon does not give presumed notability, unlike bishops, and he doesn't seem to have written books or done anything else that would generate attention to him or his works. So he meets no notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Redirect, as an alternative to AfD, and a possible search term. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while I think there's a presumption that archdeacons could be notable, like mayors of medium-sized cities, this one fails WP:SIGCOV. I tried by looking on different searches, and have found nothing. On the other hand, deanery of Greenwich is not really a rural deanery - it's an urban sprawl now. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would editors be prepared to merge Lacey to Archdeacon of Lewisham or Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark? James500 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same article, not two - a redirect would be fine, but unless that article is substantially reorganised, there is no room in it for the additional information in this article. It already gives the years of his appointment as Archdeacon of Lewisham. A redirect would be possible, though. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It make sense to redirect there. We could have a table like the one I put into Archdeacon of Raphoe. I would be happy to reorganise the material on that page, although it would, of course, require consensus from other editors to include such a table. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to redirect. I agree that Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark should be reorganised in a way that allows content from Clifford Lacey to be merged there. James500 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed my vote to Redirect. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:35, 4 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. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at This Mess![edit]

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

Blatant hoax. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Sirfurboy (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Wave Complete Destruction[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Oldspeak[edit]

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

Blatant hoax.Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the Age of Doublethink[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animosity (The Deadweights album)[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies of Beautiful Regression[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis (The Deadweights album)[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadweights (album)[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eregion[edit]

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

This is a minor place. By the time of Lord of the Rings it is completely deserted. This article is virtually a stub with only one reference. We don't need an article on this. Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. And then list Hollin at RfD. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it and the redirect Hollin per nom. You've heard of the Big Easy? This is the Big Empty. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do we have these articles on obscure locations that no one actually cares about? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until LotR TV gives us multiple episodes with this as their major setting. Tolkien wrote very little actually set during the second age, so there is really no source material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadweights[edit]

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

Hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, this band is almost certainly a hoax. Information that would make them notable is false. If they existed then they were not notable. The hoax is elaborate, but there is no verifiable information available, nor any recordings, videos, fanbase or other evidence of existence. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Per G3. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recalled to Life (album)[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No verifiable information, no songs available, no fanbase, nothing. Information that can be verified is false. —- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MarnetteD|Talk 09:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a series of articles relating to the same band that appear to all be an (elaborate) hoax. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Núñez (hacker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability, most references are self-referencial blogs and websites made by the biographed. Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poorly sourced BLP Kingsif (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eidetic imagery[edit]

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

This article, essentially about a supposed special kind of daydreaming, solely promotes a fringe theory, and all its sources totally fail WP:MEDRS, especially WP:MEDDATE. The term itself as used in reliable sources is just a synonym of Eidetic memory; hence a separate article would be a WP:CFORK. A careful reading reveals that most of the article is either WP:SYNTH or sourced to a certain Akhter Ahsen; in total, the article is to promote his ideas.

See this website, which says that Ahsen is the founder of Eidetic Imagery, a cutting edge and innovative field in modern psychology. Note the similarity of the website to the article, like how it talks about the I-S-M model, as the article does under "Practice"; or compare here, the paragraph starting with Its solidly grounded theory..., to the article's claim that Ahsen grounds his eidetic theory in both Eastern and Western traditions of science and philosophy. In addition, it draws on the most recent neuropsychological evidence involving two-process theory and holographic images in the work of Karl Pribram regarding the brain and the discovery of fractals in computer science. Aside from being obviously fringey, it shows that the article is promotional just as that website is. Here is another website promoting Ahsen and his ideas. Supporting that the article is promotional is the fact that it has 85.9% authorship by three different SPAs [13][14][15] (and the other 14.1% is likely routine addition of DOIs and the like). One of the SPAs, the article's creator, called themselves Eidetics2008, and all three of them have similar names ending in 2###; they are probably all the same person, likely one with a COI with Ahsen or his circle of followers.

Ahsen's ideas about "eidetic imagery" are not notable, and the article content is completely unsalvageable; hence it should be deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a highly deceptive article that is making novel claims that are adjacent to notable WP:MAINSTREAM claims (e.g. eidetic memory). At the best, this is WP:SYNTH and the worst, this is WP:HOAX. jps (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find independent reliable sources but what I find are the promotional main site, a few mentions in directories in relation to interfaith or Sufism, primary papers from Ahsen. I found a few third party personal posts about Ahsen like this but nothing indicating enough notability for an article. If there was, possibly that this should instead be a biography about him... —Paleo Neonate – 19:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article that promotes a non-notable fringe theory that is not discussed by independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this discussion where I listed sources and this brief discussion. The terms eidetic memory, eidetic imagery and photographic memory are used to mean the same thing, although the first two are sometimes distinguished from photographic memory. This article is a badly-written WP:Content fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd just be repeating what's been said already at this point with more, but it doesn't satisfy WP:NFRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fringey waffle. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I agree this is probably SYNTH and the article in its present state is certainly unsalvageable. However, there does appear to be such a concept, albeit perhaps not as described there. There are several good quality (and highly cited) journal articles about "eidetic imagery", notably between 1920-1980. What this concept appropriately means, I have no idea, but deleting this one should not be an impediment for someone creating a proper one in the future. Best, PK650 (talk) 04:45, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (supply chain)[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable The lead para is an advertisement of why to use thef irm. The refs are mere notices of appointments or funding , or PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is non notable and the few sources I've found are PR fluffs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first paragraph merely sets out the market proposition of this relatively new firm, with start-up coverage as references. Beyond that, the information on the founders' previous jobs and funding sources is trivial coverage according to WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first 3 references in the reference list mean that the company meets all the criteria set out in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The previous delete requests are linking to or mentioning Wikipedia notability criteria, but not actually applying them.

1. Significant coverage: All 3 references are exclusively about the company (company name is in the title of all 3).

2. Multiple: The references are from 3 completely different websites/organizations.

3. Independent: All 3 of these references are independent news organizations which don't just work for the company.

4. Reliable: The first reference is The Times, which is a national newspaper in the UK, and indeed newspapers such as the New York Times and Times of India are named after it. References 2 & 3 are reliable logistics news websites.

5. Secondary: If you read the sources (particularly the first one) you can see that the authors perform "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". GlobalOptimum (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is explicitly a reprint of the first. None of these meets WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 05:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generic startup spam, likely paid-for, so I am blocking the author (GlobalOptimum). MER-C 05:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company does not appear notable; being started by former executives from a notable company does not by itself lead to encyclopedic notability. The sources are run-of-the-mill churnalism, with the article simply regurgitating the PR-style material contained therein. WP:CORPDEPTH does not seem to be met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umut Tarlaları[edit]

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

I can not find any sources behind this game that shows its notability. GamerPro64 04:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 04:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 04:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same here, unable to find anything besides a passing mention in Video Games Around the World book. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any sign of notability. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 19:09, 1 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 after the rewrite. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard fantasy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There seems to be no real explation of what "hard fantasy" is besides a derivative of hard science fiction that someone happened to think up one day. It's mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, but only as a minor dicdef and doesn't appear to be discussed in other, reliable sources as much more than a mere dictionary definition, therefore this article fails WP:GNG though it would probably be fitting for Wiktionary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fantasy#By theme (subgenres). While there are a couple of references to the term[16] and an entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, IMO it's a WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't caught on. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect~~ per Clarityfiend, perhaps add their sources at the target. I was not able to find enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, but the subgenre exists and is discussed occasionally. With basic verfiability and with hard fantasy being is a plausible search term (50-100 page views per day), a redirect to where it is mentioned is warranted. For verifiable material, redirect is one preferred alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - Yeah, I pretty much just agree with what the others had to say. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This essay is, I think, reliable, but it is rather essayish. Those are less reliable IMHO [17], with [18] being the worst. So the sources present are not great. But there are other sources. An entire book (through, granted, looks a bit suspicious, cover-wise, from a minor publisher, no citations, can't find much about the author. But for example [19] is solid, a definition in a reliable work. Some passing but nonetheless helpful mentions in [20]. Another short def in [21]. This is mentioned and possibly discussed at length at [22] (snippet view, not sure). One paragraph discussion in [23]. An entre chapter (arguing this term is incorrect...) can be found in [24]. I can cite more but that should be enough. WP:BEFORE fail, sadly, in all prior commenters (and the nom, with whom I often agree, but not this time). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did come across that stuff in my WP:BEFORE, but I discounted them as too minor. I and the other commenters are not wrong, and I still do not believe this is notable even after your listing of "sources". And I'm not about to search the globe for a book that may or may not be reliable. The redirect can always be recreated if someone actually finds sources - but the onus is on the article creator, not the nominator of the AfD. Another problem is that hard fantasy has a different definition in many different books, and there is no single agreed upon definition. It's just a term people appear to use for their own purposes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think the topic is notable, I will try to improve it in the near future. @Hyperbolick, Clarityfiend, Mark viking, and Foxnpichu: - please take a look, I am not done yet (holidays...) but I've removed all the unreferenced OR, and added properly referenced content, including from the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy which has an entry on this (and I still need to go over the sources I listed above last week). This is clearly a notable topic, IMHO, and not in need of WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for consideration of sources and improvement put forward after bulk of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am done with my rewrite. I think the current article is clearly notable, unlike the OR mess that was nominated. But WP:TNT was not needed. PS. Closing admin should consider that the delete votes above where cast for the old version of the article and the editors who cast them where pinged about reviewing the new one but seem to have missed or ignored the ping. But the point is their votes are not about the current version of the article, but about the no-longer-existing old one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ping did not work, at least for me. I came back after a change showed up on my watchlist. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The addition of new sources establishes notability for this subject... — Hunter Kahn 10:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my recommendation, as Piotrus has found more reliable sourcing, sufficient for a start-class article. Keep per WP:HEY, and nice work. —{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the addition of new sources. Toughpigs (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing my vote due to new sources and new signs of notability. Thanks guys! Foxnpichu (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Taler[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant independent coverage by anyone but the mentioned Richard Stallman. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three independent sources referenced. Phoronix, The Register, and The Guardian. Those span beyond Stallman himself. The article should not be deleted. -Splinemath (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoronix article is a routine, random write-up from whatever the day's stack of press releases looked like. The Guardian doesn't mention it; Richard Staller mentions it once in a guest article he wrote for The Guardian about a much more general topic; so that's Richard Staller twice, and the second time was a bare mention. Largoplazo (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "that's Richard Stallman twice" ☆ Bri (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only source that passes WP:GNG is [25], otherwise all other sources are non-independent or only give passing mentions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including the source located by UnnamedUser. — Newslinger talk 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Kampf der Kryptowährungen – das sind die Alternativen zu Libra" from Netzwoche [de]
2. "GNU cryptocurrency aims at 'the mainstream economy not the black market'" from The Register (RSP entry)
3. "Gnu Taler soll Kryptowährungen gerechter machen" from Golem.de [de]
  — Newslinger talk 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three independent sources referenced. Phoronix, The Register, and The Guardian. The article should not be deleted. -Splinemath (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same answers about these sources as above. Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply follow Google Scholar and Google Books search links to see several mentions in papers and books. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions, or independent significant coverage as required to establish notability? Mentions don't suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see you added some to the article. I'll look at them when I'm on my computer, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those may suffice, but I'll wait to see the outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources IDd by Newslinger and Google Scholar hits. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:48, 1 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Moroz[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Deleted in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In spite of the article's state, the article passes WP:NPOL because it is equivalent to United States Deputy Attorney General, and WP:POLOUTCOMES states that Sub-cabinet officials [...] are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. ミラ P 19:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miraclepine and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously meets WP:NPOL. Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:09, 4 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) 02:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Moloney[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No real indication of notability other than as part of Creative Artists Agency; would consider a merge into that, but the few references don't really indicate significant notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable talent agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to having obituaries in the Guardian and Variety. ミラ P 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obituaries are not examples of WP:SIGCOV. People pay for them to be included, so it's definitely not independent. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all obituaries are paid. The one in The New York Times was paid but the ones in Variety and international publications are indicative of notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching Google Books and newspaper databases brought many articles on the man's rise and fall. He was also inspiration for a character in a film. I have added these sources and the information to the article. There is more out there that I could add, but I believe with these 15 sources his notability is more apparent now. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the citations are clearly after his death, for the most part they aren't obituaries.The articles in Newsweek, People, NYTimes and variety are about his life and death, with general conversation about what his death may mean about the business/culture/lifestyle that surrounded him in life. I certainly agree I would prefer to see citations about his general notability that were published while he was alive, but for better or worse his life and death combined appears to have been a notable subject, and therefore acceptable to have an article in Wikipedia's main namespace. -Markeer 19:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:55, 3 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. (non-admin closure) MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stargirl Interlude[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There is just a bunch of charts and it takes more than that to meet the criteria, there isn't a single piece talking about this song only. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner (The Weeknd song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There is just a bunch of charts and it takes more than that to meet the criteria, there isn't a single piece talking about this song only. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is That Alright?, I think there's an opportunity here to expand the page a bit more. In this case, add Composition, Critical reception, and Credits/personnel sections. This is a collaboration by two notable artists which charted in multiple countries. I'll try to add a few sources to the article and talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done, I will withdrawal (the source I'm looking for are reviews of the song outside of album reviews, like Steorogum and others you added). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan, I've already added a critical reception section very quickly, and I'm certain there are other reviews to incorporate as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotia Centre[edit]

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

Lack of in-depth coverage in RS. This is a small center with 12-16 stores (both numbers unsourced). There are also two office buildings. Sources are all minor mentions or routine local coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG.Redirect to Central Business District, Saskatoon, where it is already mentioned (and contains most of the pertinent info in this stub article). MB 00:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 00:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MB 00:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill mall. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 3 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.