Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 November 19 November >

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 merge to Animal attack. This has been an extensive discussion that has received a large amount of input. The consensus is somewhere on the spectrum between Delete and Merge - with many commentors noting that some of the more notable events could be merged to Animal attack or elsewhere, but many of the less notable entries do not belong in any existing article. Accordingly, I am going to close this as a merge, with the above caveat - it is not necessary to move each item from this list into Animal attack, some list items might be merged elsewhere (like an article for the specific notable individual) and many won't be merged at all. Once done, please redirect the article to Animal attack to complete the merging process. ST47 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks[edit]

People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a obituary service. It is impossible to include all deaths in WIkipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into animal attack which is much the same topic. See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you merge exactly? The list is long enough to have its own article, and too long to be merged to this other article. Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page in question seems half-baked. To start at the top, its title should be changed to conform to our usual style. As the animal attacks page is more established, it seems best to consolidate there and spinoff from there in a more organised way. There's lots of information out there about this sort of thing and so a comprehensive structure seems required. Here's a selection of sources, from a quick browse of Google scholar, to give a feel for the scope of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Deaths resulting from animal attacks in the United States
      2. Human–wildlife conflict in Mozambique: a national perspective, with emphasis on wildlife attacks on humans
      3. Characterization and prevention of attacks on humans
      4. Alligator attacks in southwest Florida
      5. Human attacks by large felid carnivores in captivity and in the wild
      6. Human fatalities resulting from dog attacks in the United States, 1979–2005
      7. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada
      8. Crocodile attack in Australia: an analysis of its incidence and review of the pathology and management of crocodilian attacks in general
      9. Causes and mechanisms of death in fatal water buffalo attacks
      10. Wild boar attacks
  • Merge as above, after removing incidents that aren't WP:NOTABLE. Some of the language in the article seems sensational, such as "Swallowed Whole By 23-Foot Python". doubleA11225 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is video footage of a man who was swallowed by a python being cut out of the snake. [1] This is Time magazine. Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample references showing this sort of thing does get ample news coverage. Some of the names listed have their own articles even. This is perfectly valid list article, just rename it to have a "list of". Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, the few notable entries only (10 by my count). Restricting this to people with articles sounds like a reasonable inclusion criterion, but it doesn't need its own article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article is terribly written but some notable people are mentioned. Suggest that the entire article is either draftified or completely rewritten to the same format as List of people who died in traffic collisions. And all-non notable people, sourced or not, need not be included. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/selective merge Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of obituaries merely because these are relatively unusual. The main article should certainly be expanded with a section for notable examples (e.g. Steve Irwin) and key statistics but an attempt to list all the non-notable events found in the news is beyond our scope. Fatal dog attacks in the United States, etc. should go too. Reywas92Talk 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge, but very pruned as Elmidae and Ajf773 mention. It is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, and I'd also question whether even notable people should be mentioned at the animal attack article where the merge could go. The better place to house such information would be at individual BLPs since notable and killed by an animal is an odd cross sectioning for a list. A category would be better to use in such a case. That said, the merge would at least be an improvement over this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding to my rationale, but if there isn't consensus on what specifically to merge if at all, I think the next best option would be to outright delete rather than letting the page remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After the relisting, the more I look at this, the more I just say delete and let categories handle this. That's a much better fit for this than a list, and it takes care of the notability of the individuals as needing a BLP, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify Listing all verifiable animal fatalities is a doomed premise, per WP:CSC: lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group... should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K). This article is at 57 kilobytes and not close to complete. There are two possible directions you could go to create a similar article that does fall in line with policy:
    1. Make a list of notable people killed by animals
    2. Make a WP:LISTOFLISTS of animal fatalities (cf. the many list articles for particular animal types or locations, in subcategories of Category:Deaths due to animal attacks, e.g. List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal snake bites in Australia, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s), etc.
The content of this article would not be a useful basis for #2, but may be marginally useful as a starting point for #1. But it probably shouldn't exist in article space as it currently exists. Colin M (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful list with proper WP:RS meets WP:GNG. Regarding the nominator's statement It is impossible to include all deaths in WIkipedia. It is possible ...however this list only covers People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks and so it is focussed and finite and relevant. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to animal attack- I agree that, at the very least, this list should be massively pruned to only include the notable, blue-linked individuals. At that point, the list would be small and manageable enough to be integrated into the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to the appropriate list articles mentioned by Colin M, create new ones where appropriate, and merge the rest into animal attack to PRESERVE. The present list is styled incorrectly and will become too long if kept. Note that List of fatal bear attacks in North America for example contains many sourced entries with no article. StonyBrook (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep I don't really care whether this article is deleted, redirected, merged, or userfied, but we really shouldn't be rewarding Andrew Davidson's now infamous Googling up of a list of sources and not bothering to read or analyze any of them before copy-pasting them onto AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if notable people are included. ミラP 23:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs pruning to notable people or incidents (like 2013 New Brunswick python attack). Would like to remove year sections (might allow centuries) and make large table like auto accidents mentioned above. StrayBolt (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space or userfy There are an utterly massive amount of sources covering animal attacks, so the topic will almost certainly meet WP:LISTN. Additionally, the list could serve as a useful index, so it also meets WP:LISTPURP. However, the list needs substantial editing: it should be limited to notable people and attacks, have sub-sections covering a greater amount of time than a single year, and have a lede that adequately contextualizes the article and explains what is included. The list needs a lot of work, so I think making it a draft and allowing the creator and interested editors to improve it would be the best outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:JaneciaTaylor spent so much time on this. The list could be improved, sure. But it is all sourced. The subject is notable, media and scientific publications discuss attacks on humans by animals. A list for navigation as well as a compilation of incidents makes sense. Eostrix (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with this article, but I agree with those that say it cannot remain as it is. As of right now, the list criteria are far too wide. Millions of people have died of animal attacks over the course of human history, possibly even billions if prehistory is included. As recently as the turn of 20th century, one tiger alone in India had 400 victims. Deleting doesn't seem like a good idea, given it easily passes WP:LISTN. Trimming down to blue-linked persons seems a natural solution, but probably leaves out the most interesting parts, and sources tend to select for the more interesting on this topic. Spreading out into sub-lists is another idea, but I'm kind of uneasy with the proliferation of articles like List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) -- did anyone beside us bother to tally that list up or is it a Wikipedia Original? Daß Wölf 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes some sense as type of death category, but list? Particularly since in the past days this was much more common. In primitive societies, this was more common. And we can also quibble on whether getting bitten, then getting an infection and dying is a death by animal attack or not... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Broad range of views; perhaps the article should be "notable people" killed in Animal attacks? Try a re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightburst. There's no good policy based reasoning prohibiting such a list.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ludicrously indiscriminate. There's no good policy-based reasoning for having such a list in an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a broad range of views with only one additional comment since the re-list. Let's try one last re-list before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMHO this is clearly valid. It is too long to merge into animal attacks article, or, you could do that but it would be instantly acceptable for any editor to immediately split it out again. And calls to merge it and then delete it are invalid, because that just erases the contribution history, when everything is added back anew, i suppose.
Unless i missed it, there is no recognition in discussion above about guideline wp:CLNT, which basically says categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. And it suggests that if there is a category then a corresponding list-article is okay. Here, we have categories like Category:Deaths due to animal attacks in the United States. Certainly all the individuals listed there can be included in a list-article. And a list-article can organize the info sensibly, can include source footnotes, can include redlink items suggesting where an article is wanted, can include "blacklink" items not suggesting an item. For the article-haters / deletionists, if you are serious about your craft you should want to KEEP list-articles like this to head off separate creations of individual artices.
There are potential editing issues, to be discussed at its talk page. For example about how to organize one overall list like this, vs. existing related smaller lists like: List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s), List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000). Should overall organization be world-wide by year. Or group by type of animal. Or group by country/state location of attack. And which fields should be included and be sortable. Allow two organizational approaches that ultimately cover all the same items, or not. I wouldn't second-guess the editor(s) active here, myself. But all these are questions about editing, not about overall notability, which is clear. "People killed by animal attacks" is a real thing, so wp:NLIST is met. And this is an extraordinary and interesting list! --Doncram (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and choose a better title. Obviously useful for Wikipedia. A lot of good useful work has been put into this. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Deaths due to animal attacks and its various subcategories are quite sufficient for the victims with articles, i.e. the notable ones. A list of all victims is wildly impractical. According to CBS News, dogs kill 17,400 people a year, and snakes 60,000, and they don't even top the list of the deadliest animals.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do we delete unusual but not notable WP:NOTNEWS events, or combine them into lists? Peter James (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the numbers are potentially enormous, as quoted by Clarityfiend from CBS above. And 50,000 people die from snake bites each year. Rely on categories to provide lists of notable people who have died from animal attacks, and use articles such as Animal attack or Animal attacks in Australia to cover information on the topic, with individual cases sourced as examples. PamD 08:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hmm, following up on this topic, List of deadliest animals to humans is interesting: Dogs appear in the second list but not the first one (ie does a rabies-transmitting bite count?), and the whole thing could do with some attention by interested editors. PamD 08:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of a person killed in an animal attack: woman trampled to death by cattle. Interesting news item, and a tragedy for her family and friends, and proably traumatic for all others involved. Probably happens hundreds of times a year, world-wide. I can't actually find a Wikipedia article about the topic, if I wanted to research how common cattle attacks (outside bull-fighting) are as a cause of death. On the other hand, if I was interested, I might be just as interested in someone put in a wheelchair for life by an attack by cattle, not just deaths. Where's the article on attacks by cattle (in what country? on farm workers or on passers-by? fatal or not? breed of cattle? ... !). If this list survives, this lady's demise could be included ... but it really can't be allowed to continue as such an indiscriminate and potentially massive list. PamD 09:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. There's no way the list can ever be complete, which is normally a requirement for lists containing non-notable people, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It's just a sampler providing an arbitrary sampling of less than 1% people who qualify to be on the list. (Too bad, someone obviously put a lot of work and love into the page.)ApLundell (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impractical, WP:NOTNEWS, random sampling of humans who died of X. Literally thousands of stories of this are reported every year. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, How can we make sure the list is complete? so it is betterto merge it into animal attack. Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as first choice. The list is does not meet GNG. The fact that "animal attacks", as a topic, meets GNG, or that a specific animal attack meets GNG, does not mean that "list of people killed in animal attacks" meets GNG. In order for that topic ("List of people killed in animal attacks") to be notable, we'd have to have secondary sources that don't (a) talk about animal attacks in general, nor (b) talk about a specific attack, but rather (c) publish a list of people killed in animal attacks. AFAICT, none of the sources in the article are such a list, and no such list exists published be RSes. For us to take a bunch of individual animal attacks and make a list out of it is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. It violates our WP:NOR policy. This is exactly what the guideline WP:LISTN and the essay WP:LISTCRUFT talk about. With respect, !votes that assert that the list meets GNG should be totally discounted by the closer, absent any evidence of a source that publishes such a list. (I would change by !vote to keep if there were WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV, not about animal attacks in general or a specific animal attack, but listing people who died in animal attacks.) Merge with or without redirect as second choice – I'm not even sure that a list of notable animal attacks is a good addition to the article Animal attack, but I suppose that's a discussion to be had on that article's talk page. There is probably little harm in turning the article into a redirect to Animal attacks, and then any notable entries can be merged from the history if there's consensus to do so. – Levivich 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t care If this is nominated for deletion so should Fatal dog attacks in the United States and people who died in snake attacks. If my article is going to be merged with another article so should their articles. If you think the article should be deleted or merged I’m fine with that, but it is completely unfair to not merge or delete other articles who are similar fashion than mine as well. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly discouraging to work on an article or list and have it nominated for deletion. Every editor understands that; please don't take it personally. "Other stuff exists" is a common but misguided argument. There are a lot of similar lists, and I (and probably most delete/merge !voters here) think they all need to be revised. For example, Crocodile attacks has a list of notable attacks, which I think is fine. However, List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States should be deleted, as should List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of wolf attacks in North America (not even fatal, come on!)], List of fatal snake bites in Australia, List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, and the overly-narrow and duplicative List of fatal shark attacks in California, along with any others like it. Fatal dog attacks in the United States is supposed to be an article about dog attacks (similar to Animal attacks), and the lengthy list in that article should be cut down or removed. – Levivich 19:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be painting with an overly broad brush in lumping all these articles together. For example, cougar attacks are very rare. And so it's quite possible to make List of fatal cougar attacks in North America be a "Short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", per WP:CSC. Whereas this is not possible for, say, dogs. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well your statement isn’t true. The wiki article said “These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.” If you want my article that I worked all day on to be deleted. You should also nominate the other articles for deletion as well JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        A second essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, has a section dedicated to why this is an argument to avoid. Anyhow, both are essays rather than official policy, so it makes little sense to Wikilawyer over it. In the end, each page must stand or fall on its own merits. It stinks to work all day and have your work negated, but all Wikipedia contributions are subject to alteration or deletion. Wikipedia is community-based, and sometimes this means a page someone has been working on for years gets deleted because community consensus decides it is not sufficiently encyclopedic. That is just the nature of the beast, and so it is always a risk when one creates a new page that the larger community will look on it with disfavor and that time will have been wasted. I am not being facetious when I say that if you want to determine content unilaterally, a web hosting service is the better place to upload your content. As to you should nominate the other articles, it might have been a good approach at the start to do a combined nomination for all the analogous pages (there are also counter arguments), but it is probably best not to add additional pages to a nomination once a number of people have expressed their opinion (as their opinion may not be the same for all of the added pages), while likewise, once one discussion is underway on one page, it is usually better to wait for it to end, so that one can allow the outcome on that proposal to inform the decision on whether to initiate further related proposals. Agricolae (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll probably get around to nominating most of the others for deletion (other than the rare ones) after this Afd is wrapped up. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with some of the claims. Steve Irwin is a notable person and some of the other people on this list are. ABC News and The Washington Post are reliable sources so if you say my article should be deleted because I have never cite any sources. You have never read my references. You probably never even looked at my article, because I did. I disagree with everything Levivich said, because it: does cite reliable sources. This list can stand alone if I rename it to “Notable people that died from animal attacks.” It would be a short list. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a few people in the list are notable, and many reliable sources have been used to document individual deaths, but that doesn't mean that 'people who died of X' is a categorization representing a culturally significant phenomenon (along the lines of WP:CROSSCAT) and not just a curiosity, such that it is worth a stand-alone list rather than just a category. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me, it's not that the list doesn't cite any sources, it's that it doesn't cite any sources that are, themselves, a list of people killed in animal attacks. Compare List of black quarterbacks, among its sources are other lists of black quarterbacks [3] [4] [5] that publish an actual list of the names of black quarterbacks (and information about them). So it's not just that the quarterbacks as individuals are notable, but the list as a whole is notable. The reason I'm !voting delete is because I don't see a WP:RS that's a "list of people killed by animals". So "black + quarterback" is a notable intersection (because reliable sources have published lists of black quarterbacks) but "person + killed by animal" does not appear to be (because RSes apparently haven't published such lists). This is basically what WP:CROSSCAT #6 is talking about. I would change my !vote if I saw a "list of people killed by animals" published by three different reliable sources. (And yes, of course I read the article before I !voted, and you did a very good job with it. I really am sorry that Wikipedia sucks like this sometimes, but it's a necessary evil to have notability requirements for lists.) – Levivich 03:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still disagree with you. I’m not breaking any rules. I used reliable sources. I bet you have never even looked at my article. Look up reliable sources for Wikipedia ABC news and The Washington Post are reliable sources. I won’t let my article get deleted because you said “it doesn’t have any reliable sources,” because you probably never even look at it. Look at this list WP:RSPSOURCES. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This confuses two different things - reliable sources that demonstrate an individual entry is verifiable, versus reliable sources that show the phenomenon itself is of sufficient notability and cultural significance to justify presenting such a list. Basically, if The Post or ABC did a story on notable instances in which people were killed by animals, that would provide notability for the topic, while the same sources periodically having articles describing deaths of individuals who happened to die in an animal attack is just reporting the news, something that Wikipedia does not do. That Steve Irwin, king Alfonso I of Asturias, and the father of one of my schoolmates all died of animal attacks, and that all three can individually be fully documented, does not, in and of itself, justify a page that ostensibly is to list everyone who ever died of animal attacks. Is the collective notable, as opposed to it being just one of the many ways there are to surrender this mortal coil? And I don't think anyone is saying you broke any rules. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It never really says you can’t use those references as a sources.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And nobody is saying you can't use those as references. References for what though? They are references that verify the specific items they are being used to document, but demonstrating the notability of the overall subject is a different thing entirely. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The references are what I used to cite sources with. Your talking about notability right? My article follows WP:NEXIST. Notability determines the existence of reliable sources in an article. What you are saying is my article should be deleted because it has references to reliable news sources, but the rule doesn’t really say if you use news sources your article should be deleted, and notability isn’t different it just determining reliable sources in an article, and my article has reliable sources.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources exist that are a list of people killed in animal attacks? Can you link to a few examples? – Levivich 20:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Yes, I know that references are what you use to cite sources. And yes, notability is determined by the existence of notable sources on the topic. Let me give you an example: I know of a whole sequence of articles in a major city newspaper that is unquestionably a reliable source about an instance of a woman dying while having sex, hanging out of a second-floor window, when the harness she was using broke. That doesn't meant that this particular event is notable, even though there are numerous reliable sources, because WP:NOTNEWS - While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. List of people who died after falling from a second floor window while having sex is not established as a notable topic by documenting that individual instances are verifiable, which is what your references are doing for death-by-animal. It has to more than just be known to happen, it should be in some way a culturally significant phenomenon (borrowing the language from WP:CROSSCAT). To put it another way, a collection of reliable source with individual stories like "West-side resident dies after unusual fall" is an example of newsworthy but non-notable happenstance; "Spate of recent deaths demonstrates importance of safe sex" reporting on the phenomenon and listing cases - that would help document that the topic itself is notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So a news source is not notable. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles that have news coverage about a person death even if it a famous person, whether it is a list or not. Why don’t their articles get deleted, because it is not a list? If what you said is the case why don’t people with new coverage on their Wikipedia articles don’t get nominated, list or not. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A news source does not necessarily establish notability. A news story about someone's death does not make that person notable. Usually a whole set of news stories about someone's death may make that one event noteworthy without making the individual noteworthy independent of the event. Repeated coverage of a person by multiple media sources, involving separate events, often does make them notable, even when the individual events are not noteworthy because they are 'just news'. THere is no simple equation of 'an event is reported in reliable news sources, so that makes the entire type of event notable.' Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty articles that have news sources that are probably not even notable. Why don’t you nominate their’s for deletion? Your argument doesn’t seem right, because there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have news sources about other people death, and yet don’t nominate them for deletion. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some articles.

Famous people who were killed in animal attacks. https://m.ranker.com/list/famous-people-who-died-of-animal-attack/reference

Top 20 Famous People who were Killed in Animal Attacks https://listsurge.com/top-20-famous-people-killed-animal-attacks/

JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ranker.com nor ListSurge.com are reliable sources, and at least the latter is of poor quality as well so definitely not WP:RS - dying of food poisoning after eating an animal is not the same as dying of an animal attack. (When it said Marty Feldman had been attacked by shellfish, I thought he had been kicked to death by clams.) Agricolae (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marty Freldman isn’t even on my list, and WP:RSPSOURCES doesn’t even say it isn’t a reliable source. I see you got your information from Facebook which isn’t a reliable source either. WP:RS never stated that you can’t include sources that have their own list.
Here some more links
25 Worst Animal Attacks In Recent History
https://listverse.com/2018/04/29/10-people-killed-by-animals-you-wouldnt-expect/
10 People Killed By Animals You Wouldn’t Expect
https://list25.com/25-worst-animal-attacks-in-recent-memory/
I used more sources besides references to news sources. I also used the person own website, multiple sources. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't mention Marty Feldman but he is given by one of the list sites you provided as potential sources. I was pointing out that his inclusion spoke volumes about the unreliability of that list. No, WP:RSPSOURCES does not list Ranker or ListSurge as unreliable sources - it also doesn't list them as reliable sources. You don't really expect that page to list every single website on the internet and indicate whether or not they are reliable? In general 'something I found on the web' isn't a Reliable Source unless it fulfills some very specific conditions. Since you have read WP:RS, you should have seen the general properties of a reliable source. It is not the fact that they have a list that excludes them. It is that they are just somebody's personal opinion that they put on the internet, and the same applies to your two newer lists. A person's own website is not a WP:RS, except for very specific things, none of which apply here. You seem still to have fundamental misunderstandings about the whole sourcing question, and I am happy to help you sort it out, but I am not sure the middle of a formal AfD process is the right place to keep doing this 'But what about this?', 'No, that does not address the problem' dance we have been doing. Your User Talk page, maybe? Agricolae (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the sources are opinions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am talking specifically about the four URLs of lists you have given. These are self-published sources, and they thus indeed represent the personal opinions of their compilers, both in terms of what should be on the list, but also in terms of whether such a list is worth compiling. Self-published web pages almost never represent WP:RS, and as such they do not contribute to establishing notability. Even were a list itself to be notable, that does not mean Wikipedia should have its own list on the same topic. Example: Project Steve is itself a notable list, but Wikipedia should not try to compile its own List of people named Steve who accept the scholarly consensus on evolution. Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but luckily I didn’t rely on those sources. I used it to find people that were killed. They are not articles I used as sources..

Here is the type of sources I used that I think was reliable:

Azaria Chamberlain http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/chamberlain-azaria-chantel-9719

Bryan Jeffrey Griffin https://www.theledger.com/article/LK/20030620/news/608099355/LL/

Richard K Root https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68682-0/fulltext

You are still missing the point. These are sources documenting the fact that these specific people died of this specific cause, not demonstrating the notability of a listing of everyone who has ever died of that cause. You can also find reliable sources that state an individual person has blue eyes, but everyone has some eye color and we don't have a List of people with blue eyes. Everyone dies of something, what makes this cause of death be considered noteworthy enough to list the people who have died this way? That is what we want a source for. That is the objection being raised, and just repeatedly pointing out 'here is another source showing someone was killed by an animal' doesn't address the concern in the slightest. I am done responding here as I see no benefit in bogging down the AfD even further by you repeatedly putting forward the same type of reference and me repeatedly telling you that is not what is being requested. Again, I am happy to help you understand sourcing on your Talk page, but this conversation, in this venue, is getting neither of us anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 25 November 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 Blackmail (band). Consensus is that this album is not sufficiently notable, a redirect to the band is appropriate. ST47 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foe (EP)[edit]

Foe (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Wikipedia notability guidelines for albums and EPs has changed since this article was created. No singles from this EP seem to have charted, and the EP hasn't garnered much significant coverage. Bearcat recently commented on another AfD discussion that the notability threshold for albums was just that they had to be released by a notable band, but that guideline has changed. WP:GNG and WP:ITEXISTS Hog Farm (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 18 November 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 Severe weather terminology (United States)#Other hazards. ST47 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dense Smoke Advisory[edit]

Dense Smoke Advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:DICDEF, created by now-blocked editor, entirely dependent on primary sources. PROD removed by IP editor who subsequently failed a checkuser and was blocked. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an actual NWS advisory. Sure the article could use improvement (I'm probably going to delete the example advisory as it's not needed), but I think the subject is notable enough to get a stub article based on its status as a NWS advisory. It needs lots of work, but I'm not convinced that deletion is the best solution for this article. Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: Can it be supported by secondary sources, though? If you remove the example advisory it turns into a definition. A before search came up with a bunch of mentions from newspapers that an advisory was in effect but didn't really discuss the advisory - if there are any sources out there which discuss it, please let me know and I'll look into withdrawing, but I couldn't find anything that would help me improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Severe weather terminology (United States). I can only find information about the listing from primary sources such as the NWS and NOAA, and I think we should just redirect to the severe weather terminology page like is already in existence for dense smoke advisory's sister advisory, the dense fog advisory. Hog Farm (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just proposed the similar article Dust Storm Warning for merger to the same target. Hog Farm (talk) 23:36, 18 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy LaRose[edit]

Jimmy LaRose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non-notable entrepreneur/motivational speaker. Deliberate attempt to avoid the AfC process as a copy of this article (other editors have already taken out some content), Draft:James Paul LaRose was rejected a few weeks ago. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few notable articles in circulation for this person not mentioned on the article.

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-Fundraising/228989

http://www.byerlyfoundation.com/fundraiser-provokes-new-thinking-for-non-profit-industry/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5717060/

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/16/what-wasteful-practice-is-this-fundraising-consultant-so-ril.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/14/struggling-with-controlling-donors-read-this-post.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/10/10/why-is-this-new-organization-sparking-such-controversy-in-th.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/13/meet-the-consultant-trying-to-start-a-fundraising-revolution.html

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/10/15/radical-ideas-to-change-how-nonprofit-boards-operateand-supe.html

https://david-callahan-hfwl.squarespace.com/home/2015/10/15/radical-ideas-to-change-how-nonprofit-boards-operateand-supe.html

https://saadandshaw.com/radical-thoughts-on-nonprofit-boards/

https://mibiz.com/sections/nonprofits/nonprofit-execs-bristle-over-national-group%E2%80%99s-push-to-pay-board-members,-empower-ceos

https://ym.christianleadershipalliance.org/page/whatdonorswant

https://themichiganbanner.com/2017/08/12/fundraising-good-times-radical-thoughts-about-nonprofit-boards/

https://dinispheris.com/news-insights/dini-insights/feasibility-and-campaign-planning-studies-still-have-their-place/

https://nonprofitboardcrisis.typepad.com/mbblog/2019/05/paying-nonprofit-board-members-nonprofitboards.html

http://massnonprofitnet.org/blog/capital-campaign-planning-studies-aka-feasibility-studies-yay-or-nay/

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=qfnaqvbab&oeidk=a07e51c6eh2dba16484

http://mifuturolegal.com/immigration-reform-w-ricardo-inzunza-jimmy-larose-2-2/

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2011-09-14/press-conference-matalon-business-center-announcing-the-formation-of-the-belizean-national-leadership-fund-september-14-2011

http://business.gulfbreezechamber.com/news/details/major-gifts-ramp-up-for-veterans-service-organizations-coming-to-gulf-breeze

http://www.vieravoice.com/November-2015/Firebrand-fundraiser-visits-the-Space-Coast/

https://www.ambergristoday.com/content/stories/2011/october/18/travel-spirit-television-filming-belize

https://www.dailymoss.com/jimmy-larose-author-and-fundraiser-challenges-donors-to-give-charities-what-they-really-need-their-minds-more-than-their-money/

Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these links aren't from reliable sources and even fewer are significant coverage. Also, given the promotional nature of this article I ask that you disclose any WP:COI that you have with LaRose. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the update. What content on the page do you feel is promotional in nature? There are honestly more criticisms going against LaRose than promotional columns. Would it help to add more of those?

Here are the domains referencing Jimmy that I think is credible, do you not agree?

https://www.bloomberg.com/

https://www.guidestar.org/

https://www.philanthropy.com/

https://www.imdb.com/

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/

I also updated my user page to disclose the COI.

Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing. Sites like IMDB and Bloomberg and Guidestar profiles do not count towards notability. Coverage must be from reliable sources and in-depth about the subject, not quotes as part of a larger context or passing mentions. Robert McClenon left several useful links about sources and what constitutes notability at Draft:James Paul LaRose. GPL93 (talk)
  • Comment - There is also a draft in draft space on the same subject by the same editor at Draft: James Paul LaRose. The future of the draft should depend on this deletion discussion of this article. If this article is kept, the draft should be replaced by a redirect. If this article is deleted, the draft should either be Rejected or also deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for the feedback, the original draft was done in his real name, which is not known. I felt it is better to go by his common name. How do we go about setting up a redirect? Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - The submitter of this article is engaged in multiple forms of very unpleasant Wiki-conduct. The submitter submitted the draft without making the required declaration that they are being paid by an organization founded by the subject. After that draft was declined for not having any properly formatted references, as are required for a biography of a living person, the submitter then both resubmitted the draft, still without labeling it as having a conflict of interest, and submitted an article with an alternate form of the name of the subject. The submission of drafts or articles with multiple forms of the name of a person (or company) is a common form of gaming the system, and is disapproved of. As the nominator of this article for deletion, User:GPL93, has noted, this is an attempt to bypass review. After the article has been nominated for deletion, the submitter then provided a "URL dump", an unstructured list of sources that are said to mention the subject. The message of a URL dump appears to be: "Here. I don't have time to work up a reasonable article. I will leave it up to unpaid volunteers to do that dirty work. But you have to do it, because I claim to have established notability." Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to engage in unpleasant Wiki-conduct. This is my first attempt at publishing a Wikipedia article. It's a lot! I added the COI to my page as suggested by User:GPL93. I have no direct relation or interest in Jimmy LaRose. Nor am I getting paid directly by Jimmy LaRose for this submission. I was engaged by a 3rd party to write this article so that it would not have any conflicts of interest. Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having reviewed the previous draft, the current draft, and the article, it appears to me that the question for the community is whether the subject is notable as an author on non-profit organizations having sometimes controversial views on how non-profit organizations should be managed. Entrepreneurs are run-of-the- mill, and claiming to be a motivational speaker is marketing buzzspeak. The question is whether the submitter can provide three (not one, not twenty) sources indicating that the subject is notable as an author on non-profit organizations. (My assumption is that they cannot, which is why they provided a URL dump.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your view on being a motivational speaker. I removed mentioning of this on the article. As for sources indicated that he is a notable author on non-profit organizations, he does have credibility on a number of sites.

1. Amazon Lists his book as #404 out of over 3,000 books on Philanthropy & Charity : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692358013/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

2. He is listed on Good Reads for this particular topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35442150-re-imagining-philanthropy---second-edition

3. Listed as Top 100 Best Philanthropy books of all time: https://bookauthority.org/books/best-philanthropy-books

4. There are also numerous articles references him as an author:

This one in particular goes into great depth about the subject and controversial views that surround it:

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545

https://themichiganbanner.com/2017/08/12/fundraising-good-times-radical-thoughts-about-nonprofit-boards/

https://saadandshaw.com/radical-thoughts-on-nonprofit-boards/

https://whocarestv.com/about-jimmy/

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Author-Says-Feasibility/228545

https://dinispheris.com/news-insights/dini-insights/feasibility-and-campaign-planning-studies-still-have-their-place/

https://valdostatoday.com/news-2/local/2014/08/scene-fall-forum-to-feature-larose/

Amanda.hogue (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda.hogue: Robert McClenon warned you about URL dumping and you respond by further URL dumping. I mean this is literally from the website of a private nonprofit consulting firm. Also being hired as a third party to write the article, which in your case is that you are being paid by a marketing firm who in turn has been paid by an organization LaRose co-founded, in no way lessens COI issues. Believe it or not I work in marketing/comms too so I know how that dynamic works as well. Even if you do add the controversy, the reason why LaRose and NANOE are paying for the page is to boost his profile, having an article on Wikipedia comes off as being important and that means something, especially in the field he is in. Finally, there just isn't enough significant coverage reliable sourcing to establish notability. I know it's hard as you're being paid to create the page, but you can't edit your way to being notable if you aren't actually notable by our standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT with Extended-Confirmed Protection in both article space and draft space.
      • It is clear that the author does not plan to cooperate with volunteer editors in developing a neutral article. The subject may be notable as a non-profit executive, but developing a neutral biography will have to be done by a neutral experienced editor.
      • The submitter's interest may be indirect rather than direct, but is just as real as a direct interest. User:GPL93 was not "suggesting" that the submitter acknowledge their conflict of interest. That isn't a suggestion any more than Exodus 20 has ten suggestions.
      • My own thought is that the agency that is being paid by NANOE, of which LaRose is an officer, isn't getting their money's worth from the submitter, but that is not my concern. (Perhaps NANOE would do better to pay someone who knows something about Wikipedia, but perhaps NANOE would do better to pay a web site developer.)
    • Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: As a web developer, that's harsh. I went through one last round and made the necessary changes suggested. This article is as unbiased as it gets and completely factual with credible sources. No links go to any promotional content. I went through every link and found the most credible sources. This author is notable enough. I strongly disagree that this article should be removed. Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amanda.hogue - Let me explain my comment that NANOE might have done better to hire a web site developer. If you are a web developer, they would have done better to pay you to work on their web site. Some companies try to use Wikipedia as a questionable means of advertising by employing paid editors, thinking that a Wikipedia article is a testimonial. The actual benefit to a company of a Wikipedia article is debatable, since the company has no control over the article, which anyone can edit and which is the product of the community, not only of the paid editor. On the other hand, a company that pays a web site developer to work on its own web site has full legal and editorial control over its web site. My honest opinion is that I don't think that you are providing a service to NANOE that is worth what they are paying you. If they were paying you for web development, they would probably be getting a better return on their investment. I was being harsh about paid editors, not about web developers, who perform a legitimate professional service for their employer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Robert McClenon Regardless of your opinion of how NANOE should spend their money, the fact of the matter is whether or not Jimmy is considered to have Notability based on the additional criteria for Authors.
  • 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - With over 30+ online articles quoting or referencing Jimmy LaRose directly, I think this constitutes as yes.
  • 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - In his book, Jimmy introduces a new theory & technique specific to non-profit management. He thinks that board members should indeed be incentivized monetarily to drive the success of a non-profit. This is a completely new way to view non-profits that no other known person has introduced before. It also creates controversy around how non-profits should be considered under a 501c status if they are internally incentivizing leadership with bonuses and increased pay. He is known for introducing this new theory, which is why he is cited, discussed and criticized by peers in the same field. So based on this criteria, this constitutes as yes.
  • 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - His book and upcoming documentary constitutes this as yes.
  • 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - In the non-profit management world (although a very small world), his book and himself has gained significant critical attention. So this also constitutes as yes.
Amanda.hogue (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Seems to me his nonprofit NANOE is more notable but still not enough for its own article. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nom. does not satisfy WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will respond to User:Amanda.hogue to say that she has done an excellent job of framing what the notability questions are that should be addressed about a two-part issue. The first part is what notability tests should be used for Jimmy LaRose. The second is whether the current article satisfies those tests. I agree that the four points that she has identified are the points that should be considered. She has made a reasonable argument that a clean look needs to be taken at his notability, and I am striking my previous !vote. However, we aren't considering whether to create an empty slot for an article on LaRose. We are considering whether to Keep or Delete the current article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt in draft space and article space with Extended-Confirmed protection. The author is only interested in providing neutral experienced editors with possible sources to work on an article, and hasn't actually written the article with the actual footnotes. Maybe a neutral editor can use those sources to develop the article. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Robert McClenon Proper footnotes & categories have been applied.Amanda.hogue (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The footnotes provide verifiability for the draft in its current minimal form, which is now free of most of the promotional material, but is not enough to establish notability. Categories are not really relevant to a deletion discussion. They are usually provided by volunteers who specialize in categories, a form of Wikignoming that is not always appreciated and should be appreciated, but is done after an article is in place. The two URL dumps still appear to be a statement by a paid editor that she expects volunteer editors to improve the article to where it will pass AFD. If a volunteer editor plans to do that within 24 hours, that will provide an article that establishes notability and should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Robert McClenon Thanks for the response. There has been some edits made by volunteer editors prior to this comment. Another series of updates since your comment have been made that establishes unbiased notability. Feel free to review the content added. Based on the criteria on Notability for Authors (as well as your own), this should pass AFD. Once again, thanks for all your input. Amanda.hogue (talk) 23:42, 25 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tosin "Cute Kimani" Adekeye[edit]

Tosin "Cute Kimani" Adekeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable media and hence fails WP:GNG. Article is written like a WP:PROMO and sources provided in the article doesn’t establish notability of subject. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just not enough in the way of in-depth coverage in reliable media about her. It's an article about a social media influencer who received an award that doesn't appear to be notable and the article attempts to build notability by name-dropping celebrities (notability not inherited). Fails WP:GNG. 23:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog Farm (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 19 November 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) 22:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aerochix[edit]

Aerochix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Aerosmith cover band appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, as trivial mentions in local publications are all I could find. No recordings and no tours. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's only attempt at a statement of notability is to point out that the band was formed around the same time that S. Tyler became a judge on American Idol. That's a pretty desperate logical leap. The band has a achieved little more than some brief gig announcements, and everything else to be found is self-created streaming and social media stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've heard of them - gotta love the name - but I can't opine if they're notable. I know they toured in Upstate NY and New England. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It falls back on WP:SIGCOV, which I don't believe is met. See WP:NTOUR. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glocal Khabar[edit]

Glocal Khabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable internet business purporting to be a legitimate news media/portal(?). No independent coverage, Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NORG. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four independent references. Our coverage of Nepalese organisations is very weak, and this is no worse than the information on most websites. I think we should keep it. Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rathfelder, I believe you are mistaken. Care to list them? If there were 2/3 (<4) SIGCOVs to be found, I wouldn't have AfDed it. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 09:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 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) 21:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the 6 references used in this article, 3 are either from the Glocal Khabar's website or the company that owns it, another is its Alexa rank. The other two both appear to be local coverage of the same event held by Glocal Khabar in 2015, although one is currently a dead link. I'm not seeing enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 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 Pompey#Television. RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character)[edit]

Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. It also contains substantial OR. TTN (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:54, 18 November 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. Firm consensus that notability is demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Girl Another Planet (film)[edit]

Another Girl Another Planet (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film exhibited once at the Museum of Modern Art. There is no other claim to notability and only the single source to try and establish any notability. From the review it appears to have been shot, at least in part, using a toy camera. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The film was not only shown at the Museum of Modern Art, but also in certain film festivals (see [6]) and has been released on DVD. [7] More importantly, though, the film received a special citation in the annual awards given by the National Society of Film Critics. [8] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reviewed by reliable sources, including Canby for the Times and Variety. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has independent reviews in reliable sources such as The Times and Variety and so there is no need for deletion imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 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. Consensus of No indication of suitable reviews or other route to notability Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Unselfish Gene[edit]

The Unselfish Gene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a book created in 2009 by its author. Tagged for notability until 2015 when that template was removed. However except for reviews in Amazon, Goodreads etc. I can’t see anything that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the slightest evidence of wide attention. No awards, no third-party reviews, anda defunct publisher. Indistinguishable, really, from an advertisement. --Calton | Talk 09:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unnotable book, unnotable author, zero reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, alarm bells ringing with dearth of library holdings of this title - see here, nothing found with a gsearch of title, author "reviews", Internet Speculative Fiction Database has nothing either to support wikinotability - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 19 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aclan Bates[edit]

Aclan Bates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been unable to come up with any WP:SIGCOV about this individual. Tons of mentions, but no in-depth coverage. I can't see that he passes WP:DIRECTOR since the only marginally WP:Notable work product I've been able to find is Broken_Angel_(film) (and even that might be a stretch in terms of WP:NOTABILITY). Of note is that a possibly-paid, certainly WP:COI editor is "currently working together with Mr. Bates to revise and update his Wikipedia page." This article used to read like a resume / promo for the director before some significant cleanup. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aclan Bates is notable if only because he is the very first Turkish director to make a full-length feature film entirely in Hollywood with American B+ actors. I have been trying to add credibility to the page by providing citations and sources, but it is slow-going as much of the material is dated and theaters don't keep records of past seasons on their webpages. Surely you experienced editors would have more luck than I have with this work. Bedogan (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've provided plenty of links and citations. Now please assign someone else to check them out and write the page. I don't want to write the bio here since you've got me marked as a COI. I'll continue to research and provide links to what sources I can find. Bedogan (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more engagement in this; the Keeps need to quote the specific references at AfD that meet WP:GNG for a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline call. The sources added by Bedogan are not good RS. However, I have found some good RS. Please see:
  1. Twair, Pat Mcdonnell (January 2007). An American dream: an Arab taxi driver overcomes massive hurdles to realise his dream of converting a church into a mosque. And US playwright Mark Sickman faced huge barriers to stage his comedy on the subject, as Pat McDonnell Twair reports from the United States.(MOSAIC)(Taxi to Al Jannah)(Theater review). p. 60-63. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  2. Vittes, Laurence (November 1, 2006). 'Taxi to Jannah'.(Theater review). Vol. 396(42). p. 9(1). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

The sources are not enough for me personally to say keep for sure, but they are not enough for me to endorse a delete either. I will leave it to others to decide.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems borderline at best; some new RS need to be challenged; try a final re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the films he has directed (some reviews of which are listed in External links, and 4meter4 also found two which can be added to the article) - he is a director with the Turkish State Theatres in the capital city of Turkey. Even if we don't yet have reviews of the plays he has directed there, they would certainly WP:NEXIST, and he would meet WP:CREATIVE - people don't get to be directors of capital city national theatres without being or becoming notable. The article still reads rather like a resume, and would be easier to understand with the stage work and filmography separated (what is the difference between Director/Actor and Actor/Director meant to be?) I have cleaned up the references a bit, and will try to add to and improve the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Costello (baseball)[edit]

Ryan Costello (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but routine coverage. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason being? WWGB (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is matchly old lately. 36.75.179.177 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)— 36.75.179.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep, professional ball player in the top league of Australia. If he were a 'footballer' you wouldn't discriminate against him 184.71.204.174 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Notability guidelines say major league players are notable but this guy struggled to be in Double A.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A recognized winter league does not meet the standards at WP:NBASE. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's summer in Australia sir. They're the top flight professional league of the country.184.71.204.174 (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ABL is considered a winter league as it is a refuge for low-tier players during the North American winter. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The best in Australia is not the same level as the best in the world.12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he were a Footballer you wouldn't discriminate because every top tier football league in the world seems to be notable.184.71.204.174
Association football has world championships for clubs and countries,and eligible leagues are defined for clubs.Does the ABL qualify for a world baseball title of stature as the highest level of the sport worldwide?12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although very unfortunate circumstances, as noted by others above, fails WP:NBASE. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic news but subject never played in the MLB and is lacking in notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is really interesting and difficult. I struggled with my Keep vote, but I think it's the right one, and here's why. I did a little research and there was more to unwrap than I expected. First the obvious: subject garnered enormous international coverage because of his untimely passing. Coverage includes ESPN, CNN, the Washington Post, Major League Baseball, People magazine, CBS Sports, Fox News, Sports Illustrated, and obviously tons of coverage in New Zealand and elsewhere. So in a strict reading of WP:NBASE, which says "Some active minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article.," subject more than satisfies the notability criteria. On the other hand, one could also reasonably argue that notability comes from the single event of his untimely passing, in which case WP:NOTNEWS becomes a legit concern. As does WP:RECENT. Again, the question being: is the subject only newsworthy/notable because he died so young? In fact, actually no. The subject had a notable minor league career, as shown here and here and several other reliable sources. So a BLP actually could have been written even before his passing. So, it's not like he was just some poor kid who was a nobody until he died too young. AND he was scheduled to make his pro debut with that league just 2 days before he died! That, of course, would have automatically given him notability under NBASE. So while this one was tough, because subject received such widespread coverage in his passing - and had notability prior - I believe this BLP should remain. At minimum, per NBASE, we'd need to include subject in a "short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players." But Keep seems like the right answer. It also happens to be a well-written & extremely well-sourced BLP. Better than many we've narrowly voted to Keep. So with the enormous coverage, prior earned notability and everything else considered, I just don't see that a Delete vote is appropriate here. X4n6 (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NBASE does not list the Australian league as one of the ones conferring notability!--12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. You're right, X4n6. 36.75.179.177 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Strike dupe vote.Onel5969 TT me 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 36.75.179.177 is clearly not here to contribute to the discussion, so their above "speedy keep" vote ought to also be voided. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair, if X4n6 were voting 'delete', would you still want to strike his/her vote?

Your first vote counted. You appeared to vote again, so the 2nd was struck. X4n6 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted,X4n6 is incorrect in assuming that the league Costello was about to play in was among those that confer notability to those who play in it.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a complete response to the IP requires a little discussion. As the first two sentences in our own entry at Australian Baseball League state: "The Australian Baseball League (ABL) is a professional baseball league in Australia. The league is governed by the Australian Baseball Federation (ABF)." Our article on professional baseball also includes the ABL.

The next lead paragraph says: "Because the ABL's season takes place from November to February, the ABL is one of baseball's recognised winter leagues (although it is summer in Australia when the season takes place), where often minor league prospects in North America are assigned as an English-speaking alternative to the primary Spanish-speaking Latin America-based winter leagues." And the link to winter leagues lists the ABL: "Currently eight minor leagues with seasons that happen during the "off-season" of Major League Baseball." Finally, under "Organisation" the ABL article states: "The ABL was originally jointly owned by Major League Baseball (75%) and the Australian Baseball Federation (25%) before the ABF became the sole owners prior to the 2016–17 season."

So what becomes clear is that, in it's own right, the ABL is currently an independent, professional baseball league. While at the same time, it is also still being used by MLB as a winter, minor league. As to the IP's legit concern that the ABL isn't listed at NBASE, perhaps that's because, per the article, the ABL has only been wholly owned and separated from the MLB since the 2016-17 season. So it's likely NBASE just needs updating, as per WP:PGCHANGE, WP policies are neither final, nor sacrosanct. So we may need to discuss, on that policy's page, some updating to include the newly independent ABL. Just as we may revise our pages on the ABL and the winter leagues as necessary. But all those are very separate issues from what we're determining here.

With respect to the IP, those discussions don't belong here. Yes, the NBASE doesn't currently include the ABL. But here that doesn't actually matter. Because the subject's notability could still have been established, before his untimely passing and ABL debut, based solely on his minor league notability. Which is totally consistent with NBASE. So IMO, Keep is still the right answer. X4n6 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As mentioned above, if he were a footballer, his whereabouts in Wikipedia would not be discussed at all. He also played in the Australian main league. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He never even played a game in Australia, so why are we having such a huge discussion over the ABL? sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would just like to point out that the International League, Pacific Coast League, Mexican League, Eastern League, Southern League, Texas League, California League, Carolina League, Florida State League, American Association of Independent Professional Baseball, and probably another dozen or so leagues in the U.S. are all professional leagues, zero of which confer notability.Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Actually, per NBASE, while playing in those leagues would not itself confer notability, significant "coverage from reliable sources" while playing in those leagues might. X4n6 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, belated congrats on your recent 10 years on this project! Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MLB did not divest its share of the ABL because it saw the ABL as becoming a peer...as it continues to use it for player development it clearly sees things otherwise.How much of the coverage of Costello does not relate to his untimely death?...(I am still smarting over the failure to delete the article on the juvenile athlete Ellie Soutter,whose suicide on her 18th birthday was her main notoriety outside her age-bracket niche).--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Whether or not he meets NBASE doesn't matter. What matters is if he meets GNG. I'll say he does, barely. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt that the missing element for GNG was sustained coverage. This discussion is likely to end before we can say if coverage would qualify as sustained. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet NBASE. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 16:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said in my vote, that doesn't matter. GNG supersedes NBASE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • GNG isn't supposed to protect people who become famous strictly by their deaths.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly is your definition of GNG in this case? He never played a game in MLB nor the ABL, and his death at all of 23 years old will not lead to sustained coverage and therefore significant expansion of his article that establishes legit notability. And as we all know, death does not establish notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sustained coverage is not the threshold. To the contrary, per WP:NTEMP ongoing coverage is not necessary. X4n6 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But there is also WP:SUSTAINED to be looked at in the same context. Which would seem to apply in this case.Onel5969 TT me 11:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can anyone point to serious coverage of him that predates his death?Wikipedia:One event is also relevant.I have no objection to his being covered in the minor league players list for his organization...he just doesn't seem to rate a standalone article.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SUSTAINED actually supports the reasoning in my original Keep. Which is that subject had sufficient notability for a standalone prior to his passing based solely on his minor league career. This BLP could be expanded to include that coverage. Two examples are found here and here. More exists. Even this article following his passing, says he was an All-Star. So merging this BLP into some broader article would invariably mean this content & coverage would be lost. X4n6 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure how you figure that, since 2 of those 3 sources are primary, and the third is about his death, which is kind of the point.Onel5969 TT me 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was an "All-Star" of the Class-A Midwest League...which is not what All-Star (baseball) redirects to.(And that link notes he was a 31st-round draft picl).12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping would be consistent with both SUSTAINED and IE. The story about him in the Keene Sentinel was in 2017. The story about him in the Hartford Courant was in 2018. The stories resulting from his death were in 2019. So there has been sustained coverage. And even if his death coverage is IE, the coverage while he was alive had nothing to do with that event, so there is no IE problem either. Rlendog (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. TridentMan123 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when X4n6 argued in their !keep rationale that the subject had a notable playing career, the evidence provided was an MiLB article about the subject's death and a link to the Fangraphs stats page for Costello. The MiLB.com article does not establish notability and any minor leaguer can have a Fangraphs page. The evidence provided here is all routine coverage. Unless there is better evidence, I'm firmly in support of deletion as the subject fails both GNG and NBASE. Lepricavark (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the sources I provided are MLB.com, on September 11, 2018 and the official site of the MLB's minor league team on July 14, 2018. I am unaware of the MLB being challenged as a RS or not passing PSTS. While the third article simply noted subject's All-Star status to further establish his notable minor league career and the coverage which likely accompanied it. And I was clear these examples, were neither definitive nor exhaustive. But users are certainly welcome to review what appears to be the 713 articles on the subject which appear on Newspapers.com. Many likely relate to his passing and others are likely incidental. The balance likely relate to his career. It also excludes magazines, tv interviews or other media. Ultimately, all this Sturm und Drang is ironic considering that had he died 48 hours later, he would have made his pro debut rendering all this moot. But having no effect on the career he had to get there. I'll also note subject easily passes BASIC and undeniably, many standalone BLPs exist on this project with far less coverage or notability. X4n6 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, all this Sturm und Drang is ironic considering that had he died 48 hours later, he would have made his pro debut rendering all this moot. No, having appeared in the ABL would not have caused Costello to pass NBASE; that argument has already been debunked above. Moreover, minor league baseball is in fact professional, so his pro career had already begun in 2017, as stated in our article. I was not challenging the reliability of MLB.com (or, in this case, MiLB.com), so that portion of your comment is a red herring. If there really are 713 articles on this subject, you should be able to link some that are not either routine nor related to his death. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go back and do some re-reading. "Debunked?" "Red Herring?" My goodness. Perhaps you've been watching too much impeachment coverage. The fact is, I said a discussion to update NBASE to include the recently independent ABL might be a good thing. And it might. I also expressly said that it was an entirely separate issue from this vote. Further, of course minor leaguers are pros. But NBASE treats them differently than it treats Nippon or KBO. That was/is the point. And my MLB.com response was actually directed to the user comment above yours, so you can retract your fangs. But frankly, the one thing that has been "debunked" and is a "red herring" is that any of this matters. Because as Muboshgu correctly pointed out: GNG supersedes NBASE. But hey, it is much prettier in green! As for the articles on Newspaper.com, it's not my job to do your homework for you. I've already provided you with one resource where you could check and see what you would find there. But I'm not writing this BLP. I'm merely saying it should exist. Regarding that, I also noticed your attempted point-by-point refutation failed to refute that subject also easily passes BASIC. Likely because even you must know he does. Both GNG and BASIC supersede NBASE. (Perhaps I should have put that in green.) X4n6 (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that there is no reason to read the ABL's independence as meaning its status was being upgraded,as opposed to being regarded as less strategic by MLB.And you haven't refuted the "one event" nature of the bulk of Costello's press.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim re: the ABL, vis-à-vis the MLB's supposed "strategic"-ness, is as unsupported as it is irrelevant. Also, before claiming what I "haven't refuted," perhaps direct your efforts to "refuting" my last statement. That both GNG & BASIC supersede NBASE. I'll wait. X4n6 (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, he also passes 1E. X4n6 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he was signed to a MLB team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.213.202 (talk • contribs)
    • By that token you (205.144.213.202,you didn't sign) could say anyone under contract would count,even a last-in-draft Rookie League player?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was close to making the majors. I have seen articles on top prospects. He may have been drafted low, but he was involved in a major-league trade.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a baseball player, he reached the same level as all those teammates and opponents we naturally ignore, despite their routine coverage in sports pages. His general claim to fame is dying in a hotel room, like a normal person on the road (remember the famous American list of dead Dominican Republic tourists this summer?). Either way, not enough, even combined. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't about level, it is about coverage. If the teammates we ignore got significant coverage we could have an article about them, regardless of whether Costello has an article. And if Costello got significant coverage (which he did), the fact that his teammates don't have articles is irrelevant to whether Costello should. Rlendog (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the coverage is about his death,it doesn't speak to his notability.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are multiple reliable sources that provided significant coverage of Costello before his death. Secondly, if his death generates coverage about him in significant sources that does speak to his notability, since most people who die don't get coverage about them or their death. So the fact that multiple sources chose to wrote stories about Costello upon his death does "speak to his notability."Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, Costello was neither a Top Prospect nor was he technically "close to making the majors" as the jump from AA to the MLB is still a pretty significant step. Secondly, with the exception of his death the coverage is pretty routine for a minor leaguer (high school and college coverage, game reports, "local boy doing well", etc.). Thirdly, the leagues that are included in WP:NBASE were chosen because of the level of play and to be frank the ABL is currently not nearly high enough to be considered for an inclusionary standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vote thread has obviously been longer than usual, so it's understandable that many will TLDR their way thru most of it. But given that the last two votes were based on the same presumptions, they need addressing. Subject wasn't just a poor kid who toiled in baseball oblivion whose only claim to fame was dying. It's counter-intuitive that an insignificant player's death would garner such international coverage. The coverage itself also rejects that notion. Subject was actually having a significant minor league ALL-STAR career[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] at the time of his passing. This entire AfD is based on NBASE, which his notability clearly passes. But it ignores GNG and BASIC, which supersede NBASE and which his career and the international coverage clearly pass. But it seems most Delete votes aren't aware of the totality of the coverage, a good amount of which did occur before his death. So it would be a shame if this caused a NO CONSENSUS conclusion, or an undeserved deletion. X4n6 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of minor leaguers selected to play in all-star games every year and he followed that up by hitting .223 the following season. He wasn't toiling away, but he wasn't exactly a rising prospect either. And again, the coverage outside his death is routine for a minor league baseball player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you discuss within the context of the specific policies of NBASE regarding minor league players; and the rules of GNG and BASIC, which again, apply over NBASE; why you believe this BLP doesn't meet them? Feel free to quote any applicable sections. X4n6 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Even if we discount all the international coverage of his death by stretching BLP1E, he also had significant stories about him such as those in the Hartford Courant and Keene Sentinel that are referenced in the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's routine local sports coverage. Features rather than game recaps, but still, the stories are clearly about him playing baseball at a level beneath that required for a standalone bio here. And nothing else. In one Courant reference, he's just mentioned in a story starring Andrew Hinckley, who has no article for surviving. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are features, not routine sports coverage. That the features are about him playing below the major leagues does not make them routine. There is no level that is "required for a standalone bio here." NSPORTS lists levels at which players are presumed to be notable but it does not exclude players at lower levels who meet GNG. Which Costello does. And just because Courant mentioned him in a story about someone else doesn't discount the significant coverage Courant gave Costello in a feature about him. Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of feature story subjects is largely arbitary,while notability guidelines are useless unless consistent.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Not discounting Costello's local player profile, just counting Hinckley's for contrast. What has Ryan that Andrew hasn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." But this isn't an either/or since, if you disagree, you're free to write Andrew's article. X4n6 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of feature story subjects indicates that the source believes that there is something notable to say about the subject. If you believe that "notability guidelines are useless unless consistent" then I assume you support keeping since this level of coverage has consistently resulted in keeping articles. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it fails WP:NBASE it passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage in the Hartford Courant and Keene Sentinel. An SNG does not trump GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When one guideline says playing in the minors isn't good enough, and the coverage exclusively signifies a guy as a minor leaguer, that significant coverage isn't good enough. Same goes for dying in one event. The content of the sources disqualify this article more than their existence qualifies it. All we can and do build from them is a biography of a player who almost reached a level that might have guaranteed a Wikipedia stub, but died before that could ever happen. Self-evidently should not be, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NBASE sure as hell doesn't say playing in the minors isn't good enough. So since the basis of your argument is false, everything else built on it also fails. And you're still making NBASE and 1E arguments when folks have already said subject passes GNG. So regardless of NBASE once GNG applies, as they say, that's your ballgame.
Finally, Derrico Dayevondre Harris, Johntel Thomas, Luke Brown, Isaac Powner, Parker Killian Moore and Alyssa Jacobson all have something in common with Costello. They all died recently, at 23 years old. As tragic as any life gone too young is, they each got only brief local coverage. So we really need to stop this nonsense that Costello was notable just for dying at 23. Otherwise we have at least six more articles to write. X4n6 (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing NBASE says "playing in the minors isn't good enough" for is that playing in the minors does not get a presumption of notability in the absence of showing evidence of significant coverage. It is a serious misreading of the guideline to say that NBASE suggests that minor league players have any less claim to notability than anyone else when significant coverage exists. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split all over the place. Essentially, votes are either "redirect / merge" or "keep" being challenged and refuted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Grimes[edit]

Darren Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, created by an WP:SPA who may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to the subject, about a person not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for the purposes of earning a standalone biography. Of the 15 references here, 10 are total non-starters in terms of getting a person over WP:GNG -- genealogy records, primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his own Twitter tweets, his own crowdfunding campaign, non-notable blogs, etc. And among the five sources that are actually real media, one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and one is locked behind a paywall which leaves me no way to verify whether it's substantively about him or just namechecks his existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone or something else -- and all of the other three are covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E.
Nothing here is strong or well-sourced evidence that we need a biographical article about him as a person, separately from his name already being mentioned in BeLeave -- people are not automatically entitled to have BLP articles about them as people just because they were founder or president of a group that has an article, so nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think he’s becoming fairly notable, so I would leave the article for now. — TrottieTrue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability standards are based on the existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage about the person, not your unverified personal opinions about what the person is "becoming". Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the criteria you have set out. This page meets the notability standards more than many other pages currently hosted. You seem to be attaching a fair few of your own "personal opinions" here. Johnlilburne666 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained in my nomination statement why the sources on offer here aren't what we're talking about when we say that sources are required. Not every web page that exists is automatically always a reliable or notability-supporting source — we require a certain specific kind of sources, and none of the sources here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BeLeave. He is primarily only notable in the context of that organisation. His legal difficulties fall into the category of WP:BLP1E. Hugsyrup 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already presented here and in the article. He's notable for founding the organization and for his legal difficulties which are two separate things making WP:BLP1E obsolete. A merger into BeLeave should be discussed on the talk page and not at AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of deletion discussions. Now it's been nominated for deletion, discussing those options is appropriate. I also don't think founding the organisation and the legal issue are separate notability claims (would the organisation have been notable without the legal issue?), or reasons to cover Grimes separately from BeLeave. › Mortee talk 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mortee: Merger and redirects are appropriate outcomes at AFD only when an article does not have enough RS to satisfy GNG but the content is still of value to the encyclopedia elsewhere. In this case, there is enough RS for the subject to have its own article, so a merger to BeLeave is not necessary. Essentially, merger discussions like this should be help on the article's talk page where there is no time clock involved.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: To reverse that, "keep" is an appropriate outcome at AfD only if the article should be kept, not redirected or merged into another article instead (and the GNG don't guarantee a "keep", e.g. if the article is a content fork or the topic is for whatever reason best covered elsewhere). We disagree about whether there are RS showing Grimes' notability separate from that of BeLeave, which is fine and whoever closes this will weigh up the arguments each way. › Mortee talk 23:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mortee:, that's not policy. If GNG is met we keep. Period. Granted, content forks are often dealt with here by necessity, but this is not a content fork because companies are not individuals and vice versa. The decision to merge the two into one article, is essentially an editorial decision and not a policy based enforceable decision. AFD should not become the host to merger discussions on articles that both meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of that is wrong. Two identical articles would both meet the GNG. We would keep one of them. This is turning into a meta-argument that isn't helping, though, so I suggest we leave this here. › Mortee talk 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable based on ongoing coverage of his being investigated over alleged wrong-doings and campaigning for pro-Brexit causes. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" - which there clearly is in this case: BeLeave. Hugsyrup 09:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Grimes has become a well known figure in the UK's political debate sphere, beyond being a simple political activist. His name retrieves more than 2,920,000 results on a Google search, which, whilst not being a full indication of notability, demonstrates the amount of coverage that he has received. --RaviC (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An argument based on lots of Google hits is an argument to be avoided in a deletion discussion and is likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of Google hits. For example, a Google hit can mention his name without being about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can represent him talking about himself or other things in the first person, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can be written by him, not about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can not even be a reliable source at all, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. And on and so forth: simply saying that somebody has some megaboss number of Google hits is not a notability freebie in and of itself, and what you have to show is the number of media sources that represent third party, third person coverage about him as a subject in his own right independently of merely mentioning him in the process of being fundamentally about the organization. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, which is why I accepted that such a reference is "not being a full indication of notability". That said, many of these hits are from WP:RS sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph, PoliticsHome and Sky. --RaviC (talk) 13:50, 26 November 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 SixTones. Tone 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juri Tanaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Juri Tanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO; no individual notability outside of SixTones. lullabying (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 18 November 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. Tone 18:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans J. Reimers[edit]

Hans J. Reimers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence subject meets WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Of the references in the article, the first three are first-party sources (the Wing Tsung website), I can't find the GC Magazine article, so I can't evaluate it, and while the Memminger Zeitung article isn't available, the title calls it an interview, which are generally not considered useful.

I did some searching of my own, and came up with nothing other than some wikipedia mirrors. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable subject. Nothing found of him of a WP:BEFORE to meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. 07:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Those voting or arguing for deletion were mainly either concerned that the article didn't meet specific or general inclusion criteria, or there wasn't significant mention in reliable sources. While those arguing for keep either point out that there are some reliable sources in the article, or that the subject meets one or other of the specific criteria, such as having a large following or having made an unique contribution. There are more delete votes than keep, which pushes this toward delete, however, some of the keep comments do point out the existence of coverage that is more than trivial in sources which are reliable, which negates to an extent the bulk of the delete arguments that there is no such coverage. I'm not entirely convinced that the coverage is much more than promotional, however, there is a doubt regarding that. In addition enough of the sources mention that the subject has a large following which puts some doubt on the arguments that the subject doesn't meet specific criteria. With such doubts this is a discussion in which neither the keep nor the delete arguments can be said to be clear, so I'm closing as no-consensus, but with no prejudice to another AfD being held if a nominator feels they can muster a clear and convincing argument that the article doesn't have sufficient coverage or notability to meet our inclusion criteria. Please note that comments such as "Fails XYZ" are not helpful or convincing arguments as they can be counted with "Meets XYZ". Details are needed. Also, incidental opinions such as "This is FOO" which do not relate to why the article under question is or is not notable are not helpful in deciding if an article should be kept or deleted. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Colgrave[edit]

Felix Colgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:ENT. Andrew Base (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FC is not an ENT, he is a Creative Professsional (Wikipedia:FILMMAKER) He fulfills not a couple but every single criteria of that rule. 1. Citation by peers, 2. Innovation, 3. not merely major but primary role in creating a body of work, and 4.Awards, exhibitions, all established by reliable sources. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Felix Colgrave is an pretty notable internet animator. He has over 1 Million subscribers, and his most known work has 30 Million views. I am pretty sure if we have Cyriak and David Firth on wikipedia, we can have Felix Colgrave as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Online following is not of importance. What DOES matter is notability per WP:NBIO, which this clearly lacks. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken about followers. Your assertion of NBIO noted. Any substantiation for that?Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion noted. Care to elaborate?Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to hear about the real life adventure of this AfD being created six minutes after the creation of the article. That's some "speed hacker typing furiously montage" level searching for notability. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is another exhobit of why we need to make all articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why? Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Johnpacklambert: I do believe in the not so distant future all articles would have to go through the AFC process before they are moved to main-space. For example in Nigeria related articles I’m getting irritated at the exponential growth of non notable WP:BLP’s created via WP:PAID editors and sock puppets. Celestina007 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern with paid editors. I am not paid, and you have no reason to believe PolePoz is paid, do you? Also, please don't vote to delete this article because of your problems with other articles. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable media hence fails WP:BIO & WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I Updated the page as much as i can. It has much more references now. I'm honestly trying my best to keep this article alive on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PolePoz: Perhaps you don’t understand WP:RS and you need to familiarize yourself with it before creating more WP:BLP’s
In the references you provided almost half are based on his twitter page which isn’t a reliable source independent of him. You need to provide sources showing he has been discussed significantly in secondary sources which are reliable & independent of him. A persons follower count doesn’t necessarily establish notability. A google search doesn’t portray him as being notable. Also before commenting indicate a bold Comment (e.g Comment) then make your point. I have helped you to do that in your comment above. Furthermore always sign after your comment. Celestina007 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't necessarily". I hope you find the additional sources satisfactory enough to change your Vote. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four of the twenty-one sources are FC's Twitter, and they are verifying the less important facts of the article. Canadian Broadcasting Company and Sydney Opera House are more than reliable sources; the rest are reliable enough to establish his work and awards. Closer please note that none of the WP:VOTEs were made before the current sources were found. I do not use that rule lightly, as none of the Voters attempted to find sources and not a single one saw fit to open their arguments with evidence for their assertions. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He did work with famous people like Nicki Minaj and DJ Mustard. He made music video for them, and barley any references are from Twitter. A little bit of them are, but i added much more references and expanded the page. His most famous animation even won the reward for the best of the month video on Vimeo... by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doing work with other musicians is what all musicians do. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • He released only ONE album. And he worked with the musicians as the animator.. He animated the videos for them.... by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a fine rationale, Bearian, if that was his only work, and the focus of his work was music. I wouldn't say this if your assessment wasn't so far off the mark, but I suggest you read the article again. Anarchangel (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anarchangel. I would qualify that statement though by adding that the article needs to be cut down in size, removing self-published and subpar sources except when absolutely necessary. There is already enough to make this specific case notable, though this of course doesn't apply to every youtuber with a video that got viral once. This article can be salvaged. Jerry (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I remember Jimbo famously saying there should preferably be nothing, rather than uncited facts (naiive since there would be a whole lot of nothing), but I don't recall a rule saying there should be no citation rather than self published if the subpar source is the only one available. Mind you, it has been a while since I edited. Anarchangel (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirect. A user reached out on WP:Discord about advice for this article. I said I wouldn't !vote in the AFD, but I'm changing my mind because I am a dynamic human being with diverse thoughts and emotions. I think that Colgrave meets WP:ENT per the the third point Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. It can be rather trivial to say, though the sourcing is limited in this article, that the subject has made rather unique contributions in the field of entertainment through his distinctive animation style which has been noted in multiple WP:RS.
    Side note: @Anarchangel: Please don't try to WP:BLUDGEON the process. You don't need to respond to every delete !vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed !vote per below. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, could you pls weigh in here? Andrew Base (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure why Andrew Base pinged me here - Andrew, you need to be careful to avoid the appearance of canvassing editors likely to agree with you. I have no particular interest or knowledge in Australian film makers, I have not looked at this article before, and my opinion is of no more weight than that of anyone else, and our history of interaction could open you up to an accusation of canvassing. Now that I'm here however...
What we should be discussing is WP:BASIC. NCREATIVE is a useful indicator that someone is likely to be notable, but it doesn't guarantee that, and its criteria are somewhat subjective; BASIC, on the other hand, is pretty clear-cut. From going through the sources currently on the page (and without having done a WP:BEFORE myself), I'm not quite decided yet. There are some reliable sources in there, but they only give him the briefest of passing mentions; most of the information in the article is coming from affiliated, unreliable and/or primary sources. I'd invite any of the keepers to suggest THREE sources that they feel best demonstrate the notability of the subject, so we can focus discussion on them. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to spend too much of my time on this (because I kinda don't), but I did find Colgrave pops up in lot of different places. Here's what I got:

Sources n' stuff
Reviews
Features
Other

A lot of those sources are straight-up trash, and I can't really review much of it since a lot of it is in languages I have zero familiarity in. There's nothing bulletproof here. His notability comes from a surrealist collection of viral animated videos. There only so many sources you're going to find on such an obscure topic (even if his channel rakes up millions of views).
We might want to consider WP:WOOD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, this is why I suggested the approach outlined at WP:THREE. You just dropped a refbomb with 25 links in it, and you say you don't want to spend too much time on this?! I started with the reviews, and looked at the first eight: one was literally two sentences, two were outright blogs, and four were by 'contributors' on platforms that publish UGC content - none of these help establish notability. Only one was perhaps worth discussing here, the 'Quickdraw Animation Society' review. That's quite a short review (which spells his name in two different ways - not that it matters, but it doesn't say much for their editorial standards), with almost no information actually about the subject of this article (it's a brief description of the film itself, and doesn't discuss it in the context of his body of work). I also looked at a couple of the links in your 'Academic mentions' section (Google Translate is a thing - it's not perfect, but it's good enough to check the coverage a source is giving) and found only passing mentions.
So, again - does anyone want to suggest the three best refs that make up the strongest case for notability? That way we don't have to trawl through a load of stuff that clearly isn't relevant to this discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 15:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I'm not the best at time management. A lot of the refs I gave are pretty much straight up garbage, but I opted for a comprehensive approach. Unless a source is completely offline (which I doubt), there will not be a single other source that comes up in this discussion that I have not already included in this list. My point in saying these things is that there is no WP:THREE even if we're being really charitable here.
I suggested WP:WOOD because we might want to redirect this article to something like Psychedelic art#Digital age (with a quick mention of the subject of course), just so that the article remains available to us easily if the subject gets better coverage. I believe the subject is notable per WP:ENT, but most WP:RS have yet to catch on to that yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, OK, understood - I can see an argument that he passes ENT, but without decent sources the article needs to go. I wouldn't be averse to draftify per WOOD; I'm not sure this would be a neat fit for Psychedelic art, and not sure where a better merge target would be; otherwise, unless someone can identify some much more solid sources, I would support a delete. GirthSummit (blether) 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I just workshopped things with PolePoz, and together we were able to come up with the three best sources. Here are what we have:
  1. "Double King – by Felix Colgrave" published by Good Short Films which is supported by HuffPost Italy.
    OK, so this one is one of the type I mentioned above. It is a web platform that accepts content from 'contributors' - it's basically a sort of curated UGC, which would not be considered reliable, and would not contribute towards notability. See the discussion of Forbes Contributors at WP:RSP for a similar situation.
  2. "X COMPANY: ARTISTS - Felix Colgrave published by CBC/Radio-Canada
    This is an affiliated source - the subject is an animator at X Company, and this is the X Company website. It's a staff profile - it does not contribute to notability.
  3. "Cartoon characters perform a disco ritual in Fever the Ghost's Source music video" published by Dezeen which seems like a rather reputable source going by their about page.
    This is probably the best one - the author is a staff writer and editor for the website, which appears to be independent and I see nothing that would call the reliability into question. However, it's just a brief interview with the subject - see WP:INTERVIEW - whatever is coming from the subject's mouth is primary, and so is explicitly excluded from establishing notability in WP:BASIC. There's not much in this interview that isn't coming from the subject.
With those, I think the article is probably worth a keep. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, PolePoz - thanks. I've had a look, and I've inserted my thoughts about each of these sources above. In short, my opinion hasn't changed, the sourcing just isn't there to support notability. There's a lot of UGC, a lot of social media stuff, but nothing that ticks all the necessary boxes - independent, reliable, secondary, and giving the subject significant coverage. I wouldn't be surprised if this changed in the near future, which is why I'd be happy to see the article draftified - a bit of coverage in a couple of reliable sources would change my view on this, but for now it looks like he fails BASIC. GirthSummit (blether) 18:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Im kinda confused on what should be updated for this page to stay on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
Hi PolePoz - basically, this article needs better sources. If you haven't already, read WP:BASIC - it's pretty short. We need multiple independent, secondary reliable sources, and they need to give him significant coverage - I'm not seeing anything that ticks all those boxes. You could construct an argument in line with the first bullet point at BASIC, saying that there is enough trivial coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article; personally, I'm not convinced that there is enough of that though, the academic sources I looked at really were very passing mentions. What we have is a lot of social media, a lot of affiliated sites, and a lot of websites where fans of his work can write about him; what we want is coverage of him and his work in reliable sources, written by staff writers with proper editorial oversight. GirthSummit (blether) 18:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many better sources this page needs? Is there a limit for them or no? Im am honestly trying my best to keep this article alive. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
You still don't get it, do you? It's not that there aren't enough sources for this article...it's just that some articles aren't worth having on wikipedia in the first place. If not enough good sources can be found, it's not worth keeping on the site. I think most people right now are of the opinion that it should be turned into a draft, not visible on the regular site, but still existing. In case Felix does something in the future which gets him a lot of media attention, this article would be brought back into the mainspace of the site as a full article. Personally I think he meets notability right now, but it's not very obvious, and my opinion on that matter can be changed...Jerry (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure Felix Colgrave is worth having on the wikipedia. His animations are very unique, and as i said earlier since Cyriak and David Firth can have their spot here, why cant we allow Colgrave to have it's position on wikipedia as well? Plus there's a little bit of twitter references, most of the references come from various sites.. I fail to understand why cant we keep this article? If someone could help me detect and collect better references for Colgrave i'd be very thankful.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk •
  • Delete - the only point of significance I can find in the entire text is the 2014 award from the animation festival, which was five years ago. The rest is WP:HTRIV. Just does not cross the line for notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:55, 27 November 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. Tone 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Mihai[edit]

Beni Mihai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was created by User:Beni Mihai who seems to be the subject of the article. I can't read the sources in their native language, but running the first and third though google translate makes it seem like the sources are just passing mentions about him being in a festival. and the second is just a youtube video. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have took a look over WP:NMUSIC in advance and I dont see why the article doesnt met the criteria for musicians and ensembles, point 1? I do think that publication in Serbian radio and TV news site, as well their YouTube channel, followed by publications in Romanian news media counts. Sure, if you think that the artcle need inserting more information, is not better to be moved to sandbox or draft, instead to be deleted? Beni Mihai (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried to find more references, but till now there is no any in English language. The references are to a Serbian Radio and TV station and is in Romanian, YouTube reference is interview with Beni, made by the same TV station - Radio Televizjia Vojvodina. Third information is about his performance at Arad Fashion Days. Additional reference demonstrates that his latest album was licensed and has official UPC number, as well ISRC number for the singles. There are more singles licensed as well, which we plan to add soon (including their UPC and ISRC numbers). All this is to prove that Beni is a real person and what he is doing is real. We do believe that soon there will be more publications about him in the electronic media. We hope that Wikipedia will decide to keep the article, which will be extended with more information. Beni Mihai (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under "we" I do understand my team: I have people licensing my works, as well person for relations with news media and publishers. The account is used by a single person and I can declare that there is no COI. Beni Mihai (talk) 16:45, 19 November 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. Tone 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hill Avenue[edit]

Red Hill Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Per the US Streets wikiproject, streets are generally not notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, also not much content. Peter James (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of a large batch of repeated creations on local streets in Southern California by the same user. Most have already been deleted; Carlsbad Village Drive and Harvard Avenue, Irvine, California are currently prodded (and Harvard should probably by deprodded and taken to AfD because it was already deleted under the name Harvard Avenue (Irvine, California)). I rescued Culver Drive, Irvine, California based on some historical significance but even there notability is marginal and I think most of these lack even that much. In this specific case, one can argue that the name "red hill" itself has some local historical significance as a state historic landmark [46] [47] but I don't think that extends to the street. I made some searches and while I did find a couple of newspaper articles about the street itself [48] [49] I think they're too local and routine to provide enough notability through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly does not meet notability standard, especially when compared to existing articles on U.S. streets. SounderBruce 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—fails GNG as noted above. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of encyclopedic notability. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom and others. MB 02:18, 25 November 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. Tone 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Parkway[edit]

Alton Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Per the US Streets wikiproject streets are generally not notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a pretty darn generic road on G maps, no assertion of nobility to reach WPStreets guidelines. Reywas92Talk 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 13:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you search ocregister.com (the local newspaper) for "Alton Parkway" you can find quite a few hits, the first dozen or so of which are stories over a wide spread of years about an extension that was promised for years and opened on 2012. It's an important arterial for local traffic and planning purposes. But that doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia, and I don't know of any historical or landmark value that it serves; it's really just a road. One of many stubby, unsourced, and non-notable Wikipedia articles on roads in this area created repeatedly by the same user; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill Avenue for another. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, no notability hewhoamareismyself 06:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG as "just another road" with no substantive discussion of it in reliable sources. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Quick question though -- hypothetically, if this article gets deleted, and the original author creates it again, do we have to go through a 7-day [[WP:AFD}] a second time? How often can he keep doing this in theory before an admin or somebody says, "enough is enough"? 107.77.202.170 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a full AfD returns a delete decision, if the article gets recreated again in substantially the same form, it can be speedily deleted without a discussion or waiting period via WP:CSD#G4. And if it is repeatedly recreated and deleted, an administrator can protect it so that it can't be created again without changing the protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG pretty easily. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with nom an other, a NN road. MB 05:21, 25 November 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 Computational linguistics. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic Systems[edit]

Symbolic Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An academic program does not meet WP:N. Mightytotems (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 13:36, 18 November 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) 14:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with assisted GPS[edit]

List of devices with assisted GPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assisted GPS is a universal feature in modern smartphones. Although the technology itself meets our notability criteria, the devices equipped with it (ranging from phones to tablets to cameras to cars) are not discussed as a group by reliable sources and thus fail WP:LISTN. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be all modern devices for the last decade, unclear what the purpose of this is or the sources covering it as a whole. Reywas92Talk 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aGPS was invented by Qualcomm in 2004 and was still somewhat rare in 2008 when the list was created. At the time, the list made good sense. But the technology took off and now nearly every cell phone with GPS capability has this technology. Unless someone wants to say, restrict the list to early historical implementations, the list has become fairly unmaintainable and aGPS universality has rendered it moot. Time to retire it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --mikeu talk 22:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete practically every cell phone sold today would fall under this. it may have had values 15 years ago but probably not now. Graywalls (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cultural depictions of Ronald Reagan. Tone 18:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan in fiction[edit]

Ronald Reagan in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is currently mostly used as a stand-in for a Transformers franchise article. On the topic of Regan in fiction, it's extremely minor stuff that really doesn't deserve coverage. I'm not really aware of the current acceptance of "popular culture" articles, but this certainly seems too minor even for one of those. TTN (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of the rare cases where I agree with the nominator, this entire article is basically about Ronald Reagan's one-time appearance in the Transformers Marvel UK comic, which is fairly trivial. There have been what, 45 US presidents now? The only other one with an "in fiction" article is Barack Obama with Barack Obama in comics. JIP | Talk 14:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could not find enough coverage on Reagan fictional appearances to justify this article. I do not believe it would be wise to merge this information with the main Reagan article as it could border on trivia. There seems to be far more coverage on the connections with Reagan and music than with fiction. Aside from the Obama example cited above, there is also Donald Trump in popular culture and Donald Trump in music, but those examples pass WP:GNG due to the coverage while this one does not (at least from what I can see after doing a web search). Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Admittedly it's not a great article, but, as someone who has worked on a lot of articles concerning U.S. presidents, I generally try to shunt stuff like this off to some kind of sub-page so that it doesn't clutter up the main article. Perhaps a better solution would be to move the content on this page to Cultural depictions of Ronald Reagan and try to expand that article instead. Orser67 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be a good idea. I do understand and agree with your point about not putting information in the main article and having it in a sub-section instead. Hopefully, other editors will respond and discuss this as I do not think I am experienced enough as an editor to provide a concrete opinion, but thank you for the proposal. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree! That seems like a much better idea. This can help keep main articles organized, while also allowing for detailed, high quality content. SuperChris (talk) 02:24, 25 November 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. Tone 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Øivind Johnsen[edit]

Øivind Johnsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hasn't improved since prod 5 years ago. WP:BEFORE fails to find anything in English and I don't read Norwegian. He might be notable - if there are sources about him, but the article sports none, and the no wiki article is not much better, through it links a WP:OBIT in a newspaper (but we generally want to see more sources than a single obit). Thoughts? Keep and wait another few years or regretfully call it time? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:OBIT isn't a policy, guideline, or essay - it's a site for deceased Wikipedians that says nothing about how obituaries should be used. Why are you citing it here? There is no bar on using obituaries to support notability - indeed, they're often the ultimate in WP:SIGCOV and it makes absolutely no sense to exclude them in assessing notability. Not knowing Norwegian should make you more careful in this case - indeed, there is no need to assess articles that you do not feel ready to investigate. At the very least based on machine translation I see WP:SIGCOV in the following references: 1 2 3 4. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 18 November 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. Tone 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by creator. Fails WP:GNG. There are no buildings taller than 52m in this city and the table doesn't even match the single Emporis database source, making this also WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There are ridiculously too many AFDs about "tallest buildings in X". Fundamentally, it is okay/good to have a world-wide list of tallest buildings, and legitimate for that to be broken out to more local areas. Sure, this one seems lower-quality than many other "tallest" articles I've seen. Obviously better, IMHO, to redirect to a larger level tallest buildings list, perhaps List of tallest buildings in India or a closer level. This is part of heading off new creation of same article, and part of remembering what issues with previous version were (because a redirect will survive, and a Talk page hopefully having a link to this AFD will survive, etc.). Come on people, help break the cycle not perpetuate it. Could there be some RFC, some convening of editorial decision-making, instead? --Doncram (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not tall enough for List of tallest buildings in India. Peter James (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With smaller cities I'd normally agree without demur. There are indeed far too many of these sorts of articles. But note that this is a city of 1.6 million people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew Ludhiana has over a million people when I nominated this, but I don't think it matters - the city does not have many tall buildings, they are all in one complex and of the same height, and they are not well-documented. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 November 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 redirect can be editorially created. I'm discounting the keep because the IP does nothing but cast drive-by "keep" votes. Sandstein 15:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Witwicky[edit]

Spike Witwicky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the IP would like to explain how this possibly establishes, I'd wager this is User:A Nobody yet again. It matches their MO of posting nonsense opposite keep arguments in AfDs. TTN (talk) 15:50, 18 November 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. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vårdguiden 1177[edit]

Vårdguiden 1177 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Their main claim to 'fame' (and notability) is a recent controversy about their database being not properly protected, effectively a company version of WP:ONEEVENT. Other than that it seems that they fail WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. BEFORE doesn't show much in English, and Swedish page doesn't go much beyond this incident either. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no such thing as a "company version of one event", but if there were the solution to it would be rename/redirect/merge to the notable event, because WP:1E is not a stand-alone WP:DELREASON. However, the February 2019 data breach is not the only incident in which this company has received coverage. There are also the scandal of their poor response times discussed in early 2018, the scandal of people seeing other patient's inforamtion in late 2018 etc. etc. etc. All reported in Swedish national media ON TOP OF the data breach exposed in 2019 - a clear pass for WP:CORP.
  • Keep - Per WP:CORP. Per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let me contextualise: 1177 Vårdguiden is a core part of national Swedish health infrastructure, co-owned by the Swedish counties and municipalities through sv:Sveriges kommuner och landsting. The English article has a very unfortunate angle. The data breach was a big, national scandal given the role 1177 Vårdguiden plays, but it's not the one defining event. sv:1177 Vårdguiden has more information. Finding good sources online is slightly time-consuming given that it is mentioned all the time, so you'd have to go through a lot of material – 1177 Vårdguiden gives 22079 hits in sv:Mediearkivet (a media archive collecting a lot of, but not all, Swedish newspapers) and the shorter and oft-used 1177 gives 58143 hits, but as an example, see this article in sv:Dagens Medicin, the leading Swedish medical newspaper, where the Swedish national Minister for Health and Social Affairs says that the government's plan is that "everyone will call 1177" and that the government has given the municipalities and counties a sum of money to develop 1177 Vårdguiden to become the central starting point for health care in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to very briefly explain this in the article in just a few words, adding the Dagens Medicin article as the source. There's a lot more that could be done here. /Julle (talk) 12:02, 22 November 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 Optimus Prime#Beast Era. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Primal[edit]

Optimus Primal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. The current "reception" is trivial, and may not even be a RS. There is no worthwhile content to merge, so it should be deleted and then redirected to Optimus Prime#Beast Era. TTN (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Optimus Prime#Beast Era This is a valid search term. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it will be only months until Optimus Prime is deleted as well. JIP | Talk 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. The odds are Optimus Prime can survive this, as the most prominent transformer. We can review sources for him when the time comes, but I wouldn't bet it will go. Some fictional characters are notable. Just not all of them (but a small minority). Kind of like with real people, you know. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every living person, and we don't need one for every Transformer, either... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The thing is, it's more like "we don't need one for any Transformer" these days. I don't expect to see individual articles for the Micromasters Terror-Tread and Cement-Head or something, but nominating something like Spike Witwicky, the principal human character in the TV show, who appears in pretty much every episode, for deletion is kind of strange. JIP | Talk 12:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is definitely no way Optimus, Megatron, Starscream, or Bumblebee ever get deleted. Their current articles are garbage, but I'd definitely bet money they could be turned into something good. Other than those, I can't see too man more existing though. TTN (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Fails NFICTION. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 19 November 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.  JGHowes  talk 14:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Gurjar[edit]

Narendra Gurjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Andrew Base (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow - the page should be allowed as i have provided enough citations and references for my article.Sameer.golu (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's rife with promo and no indication this individual is notable. The handful of YouTube videos are worthless as sources and the rest are run of the mill announcements. Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Speedy Keep’’’ - This Wiki article follows the GNG criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.7.156 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuine - article is genuine with enough links to verify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.52.80 (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have semi-protected this AfD for four days in response to excessive IP hopping and sockpuppetry. Please note that AfD is not a vote and that mere popularity and majority does not rule; comments should explain why the page should be kept or deleted, referencing policy as needed, and decisions are made through consensus, not voting. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:21, 18 November 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. Pass WP:GNG, The content of this article is based on its Danish Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) -Nahal(T) 11:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Tøpholm[edit]

Ole Tøpholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that the subject passes WP:NBIO. Article about a fan of Eurovision by a fan of Eurovision... no indications of awards, in-depth coverage of their life&career, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hardly written by a fan, this individual is not just a fan, but the TV commentator for Danish viewers at the Eurovision Song Contest, from both this and The Danish wiki seems to sum up his life in as much detail. Just because it doesn’t meet your criteria, shouldn’t be reason to delete it. Mrluke485 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2019 (GMT)
    NBIO is hardly 'my criteria'. Please explain which part of NBIO makes being a TV commentator sufficient for passing our policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Well explain to me why my articles are under threat, when other articles that clearly do not meet the so called NBIO seem to slip through the net, you tried removing two articles of mine which met the GNG criteria, that should be enough to pass. Simply because you don't like them or because the article is only backed up by less than five or six references, or you see no reason for them to be here, doesn't mean other will think the same. Mrluke485 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (GMT)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should answer your question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument I am trying to make is that a television commentator is the voice of the programme for a successful television show like the Eurovision Song Contest, they are there to direct, inform and entertain the viewers at home. I’am not saying that every TV Commentator needs a wiki entry, but if they’ve been presenting it for nearly 10 years, just as our page in question has done, they should be entitled to an entry. Given the fact you have attempted to remove entries I created on high profile associates on the Contest, you seem to think that the Eurovision Song Contest is insignificant on Wikipedia and those associations with the contest, whether they are presenters of the show or have been long standing television commentators are irrelevant and don’t deserve and entry. Mrluke485 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2019 (GMT)
ESC is significant, but Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. Not everyone associated with this event is automatically encyclopedic. They need to meet our other requirements, as outlined in WP:NBIO. Did this person win any awards? Has anyone unrelated to them written their biography? Or discussed their significance? Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, so in order to stay on Wikipedia, they need to win awards. It's a harmless article at the end of the day, what are you so afraid of. Not every article that gets entered is perfect at the end of the day, I tried finding more references to back up the article, but you don't think that's enough. I mentioned Presenters are the face of Eurovision and Commentators, long standing ones especially are the voice of the Contest. If the commentator is a one off then fair enough, they don't need a page, but if they have done it for more a decade, that is what they are best remembered for. Look at the end of the day I am trying to defend the article and it's not fair that my work has to be the victim of deletion. Mrluke485 (talk) 10;40, 15 November 2019 (GMT)
Yes, winning awards helps. And WP:ITSHARMLESS. You really need to check that list for what arguments not to use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, I am trying my hardest to defend the article, whilst trying to find more reliable sources to back the article up, I am still on journey regarding what is notable and not. I understand that you have a duty here and I accept and respect your different of opinion whilst disagreeing with your decision to removing the article, but you also have to understand that I am trying my hardest to defend the article from being deleted, I have just as much right to defend the article as you have to wanting to remove it. Mrluke485 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2019 (GMT)
  • Comment. I am not finding any RS in the English language, but it's likely that sources, if they exist, are in Danish. I do question whether WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator because it's pretty clear from the few Danish sources I found about his firing/lay off that he was a journalist and not a fan doing commentary for Danish radio and television. The article said he had been a journalist for 19 years. See [50] I don't think any serious search for sources could have done by the nominator based on this gross mischaracterization.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Toplholm appears to be a pass for WP:BASIC based on the following references: 1 2 3 4. Notable Danish journalist and television commentator. Agree that the comment in the nom saying that this article is "about a fan" raises questions about whether, and to what extent WP:BEFORE was done but everyone slips up occasionally and checking such things is what AFD is for. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG sources are third party and reliable. Has done notable work within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 19 November 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. Tone 09:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Brads[edit]

Drew Brads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. His rubicks cube exploits were covered in the local media. Outside of that, there are primary sources that verify non notable achievement. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAtleast he had been recognised by awards won. Atleast be meets WP:GNG. Rocky 734 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. This person is notable, therefore it should be improved but not deleted.WikiAviator (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Coolabahapple local coverage and lack of English content is not a reason for articles to be deleted. Those can also be RS.WikiAviator (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi WikiAviator, sorry but i have only added this afd to a couple of afd lists, that is all, you may be meaning to respond to someone else? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple world records in a premier mind sport, backed up by reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:48, 19 November 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. Tone 09:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalluri Sushila[edit]

Kalluri Sushila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article since its creation. Per WP:BEFORE I can find no refs this person even existed. Since it makes a claim of significance and she has died years ago, I am using AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, apparently no sources out there. I searched for Sushila Group as well without any substantial results. Skeletor3000 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not the first time this article has been AFD'd - see the user's talk page. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Andyjsmith: To add onto Andyjsmith's comment, this article has not just been proposed for AfD, but has been speedily deleted before due to lack of any establishment of notability. This version appears to have been created within an hour of the speedy deletion notice on the creator's talk page. It was also created with a peacock template already in place, leading me to wonder if the user just pasted the deleted article's content into a new page after the first was deleted. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 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 Return of the King#Book V: The War of the Ring. Tone 09:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth of Sauron[edit]

Mouth of Sauron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know The Lord of the Rings is a popular book, but "The Mouth of Sauron" only appears on one page of that thousand-page epic. He is simply not significant. Just to pre-empt arguments: this is about him being an important fictional character; not whether the Lieutenant of Barad-dur is notable in Tolkien's imaginary world. Of the sources cited, Bilbo's Birthday and Frodo's Adventure of Faith is a Christian homily, not a work of scholarship. The author mentions the Mouth briefly, bracketing him with Saruman. Timmons and Shippey only mention him in a sentence, while commenting on Gandalf. Russell has one page discussing his costume in the movie. The character was cut from the theatrical version of Jackson's Return of the King. These are not substantial references. The Return of the King page adequately summarises the Mouth's role in the story. There is no justification for this page. Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 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) 05:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Dautch[edit]

Leif Dautch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not appear to be notable. He is an attorney who ran in an election and lost, so he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG either, as you see that most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY sources that only verify basic info or passing mentions in WP:ROTM coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 18 November 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 Contrived. Tone 09:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blank, Blank, Blank[edit]

Blank, Blank, Blank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My WP:BEFORE doesn't turn anything up besides music track listings, Amazon, and this article. See also my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrived for my AfD of the band that created this. Hog Farm (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the band, whose sourcing problems are repairable, this album doesn't really have a very strong notability claim per WP:NALBUMS. Once upon a time, our only notability test for albums was that they were verifiable as existing — as long as the band had an article, every album in their discography was automatically a valid candidate for its own standalone article too just because a notable band had recorded it. That's not the notability test for albums anymore, however; for an album to warrant a separate article in 2019, we have to be able to say and source a lot more than just the fact that it exists. But for this album, that's really not possible. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Contrived as this could be a viable search term for someone interested in this album and band and it is already listed in the discography section. I would not completely oppose a deletion, but I always go for a redirect on the off-chance that someone actually types this in the search bar to look for it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 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. Tone 09:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo KK[edit]

Oslo KK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability (having one or more famous members doesn't mean this club inherits their fame). Fails WP:NORG. P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what you have to remember is its notability within the sport of canoeing. And within this small sport this is a remarkable entity. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is not supported by WP:RS. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It explains why the sources don't pour out the doors and windows. But check out the article as it currently stands. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our coverage of canoeing is very weak. This article has multiple independent references. Of course they talk about the members, but its hard to see what else they could be expected to talk about. Rathfelder (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article has seen expansion and addition of references on November 18. But IMO, the references still don't establish notability (merely its existence); its notability is clearly coat-tailing on the fame of some of its members. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:21, 20 November 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) 04:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrived[edit]

Contrived (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything about this band at all that's not self-published or online music track listings. I think it says something that all of the band members and all but one of the album releases are red-linked (I'm gonna AfD that one album too, doesn't seem to be notable either). If I'm just using bad search times during my WP:BEFORE, I'd be happy to be corrected. Hog Farm (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick Google found these: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], plus several others discussion the band members links to other bands. Given the common membership with Wintersleep, at the very least I would have thought that a merge there would be in order. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't work, because they also have crossover membership with Holy Fuck, thus setting up an WP:XY issue. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to grant that a few of the sources in the article need to be replaced — Chart Attack, for example, has gotten cybersquatted, so those links are now leading to advertorial spreads for inflatable air mattresses and office chairs instead of the original magazine articles about Contrived — but there are several decent sources still present, including Exclaim! and The Coast, and the broken references are replaceable. The issue here isn't that sources don't exist, it's just that the band haven't been active since 2008, so their sourcing doesn't Google well a decade later and will have to be recovered from newspaper archives. I am getting ProQuest hits with which the sourcing problems here can be fixed, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sourcing fixed; it's now up to 13 footnotes, with nearly all of the new ones being from major-market daily newspapers. All the dead ones are gone, although I was able to recover one of the Chart Attack pieces through Wayback and changed the weblink accordingly. I will admit that a couple of them have more Wintersleepy than Contrivedy headlines, but they do address Contrived as well. And I haven't even dealt with the sources Michig found yet, either: one was just a repeat of a source already present in the article, but the other four will just help pad out the article even further. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. Great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per [[WP:HEY] the article has been significantly improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources and the pre-existing sources that show significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC are passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 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) 03:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Finlayson[edit]

Kirsty Finlayson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a politician who contested several seat but no indication of holding any political national position. Sources provided are either primary or about her candidacy. Article written is more toward to promote/advertise her candidacy for 12 December 2019 United Kingdom general election. Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is contesting the Parliamentary seat Oldham West & Royton for the Conservative Party. I would personally argue that any candidate for the main parties in the general election is automatically notable, although some might differ. I tried to include as much information as I could on her. I don't understand how the tone is supporting her candidacy: the language seems neutral to me. I am prepared to compromise and let certain parts be deleted if the source is considered too primary, but I'd argue that deleting the article all together is disproportionate given that the general election is very important in the UK. Epa101 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Epa101 Greetings. Being candidate do not get Wikipedia page automatically irregardless of how important the election is. A person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to claim notability as a politician. To have a non elected politician in Wikipedia is like having well-known, heavy traffic platform to promote/advertise the political campaign for the candidates which is WP:What Wikipedia is not. Page can be recreated when the ballot is counted and "if" the candidates is elected, passing WP:NPOL notability and not before. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello CASSIOPEIA. It doesn't look as if I'm going to win this. I'll take a copy of the page, just in case she gets elected. As an aside, it doesn't seem very fair to me that the incumbent gets to have a Wikipedia page and other candidates seeking election so not. That doesn't seem consistent with Wikipedia's political neutrality to me, as it is likely to favour the incumbent. I know that this is not the place for such discussions though. Thanks for your time. Epa101 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Deletion should not be seen as wining or losing, but as a space to make reasoned arguments about how a subject does or does not meet the standards for notability. And, I will say, your position is not unique and is often articulated. The challenge with candidates running for office is multiple (does a campaign fall under WP:BLP1E, is campaign coverage run of the mill, do/should we treat all candidates equally (or do we privilege candidates who are members of certain parties or are more likely to win), and is the person really (and permanently) notable (should a failed candidate always be known as public figure or are they low profile individuals), and what about candidates who lose in primary elections (perhaps US specific). Often, we create redirects to a page about the campaign, where certain biographical and campaign issues can exist. In practice, I find it tough to ensure a neutral point of view in candidate pages and there is a tendency to turn a subject's page into a campaign brochure (listing endorsements and policy positions, perhaps sourced only to the campaign's website. While vandalism protection and other reviews occur on pages with lots of visitors, some of these lower profile races do not get the same attention (and vandalism and other violations can sit unnoticed for long stretches of time). --Enos733 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I have obviously lost this argument, so I think that it's time for this article to be deleted. If I may make a final point, I feel that the current policy simply cannot be enforced fairly and evenly. Politics is always hard to be objective on. There is a category Category:British political candidates. If I just click on a few links, I cannot see how Beki Adam, Shahrar Ali, Captain Beany, Jane Birdwood, Bill Boaks or Lord Buckethead meet the criteria as outlined. I suggest that Kirsty Finlayson is just as notable as these people. If this policy is up for discussion any time soon, I shall vote to change it. It's impossible to apply the current policy consistently, and that opens the way to political bias. Epa101 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Coverage cited is trivial or WP:ROUTINE. Bondegezou (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:The subject's political career to date fails WP:NPOL, falling under the specific note that "being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". As to whether there is evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, the authorship of an item published by 24plusnews.co.uk is a primary source, and being quoted in passing in a BBC News item on dating apps is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL. Wikipedia is not an info site for candidates in upcoming elections and usually the current incumbent didn't have an article until after winning the election anyway, so it's actually incredibly neutral. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL, political candidates are not inherently wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contesting a seat will never make a person notable. Why would it. People contest seats for all sorts weird and wonderful reasons but only if they win it, will it pass the politician notability policy. Fails WP:NPOL. No stand-alone to pass WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a longstanding consensus that people are not permanently notable enough for Wikipedia just for running as candidates in elections they have not won. In the current UK election alone, there appear to be between 2,500 and 3,000 people running as candidates — by far the majority of whom will not win their seats, and thus will be of no further interest to our readers 48 hours after the election is over — but now add to that the next elections for Stormont, Holyrood, the Senedd, the Canadian election that just finished a few weeks ago, the US Congressional election next year, France, Germany, Australia, Poland and every other country on earth that has democratic elections, and it'll become clear how utterly unsustainable it would be to even try to maintain an article about every non-winning candidate in every election. We are not an advertising platform for aspiring politicians to promote their campaigns — we are an encyclopedia, and our notability standard for politicians is holding office, not just running for it. Obviously she'll qualify for an article after election day if she wins the seat, since her notability claim will have changed to one where an article is required, but simply being a candidate is not enough to already earn her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a parliamentary candidate is not in itself a sign of notability and there is no sign in the article of the subject meeting notability standards for any other reason. If the subject of the article is elected as a Member of Parliament then the article should of course be recreated, but there is no reason for there to be an article for the moment. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 22 November 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. Tone 09:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Armstrong (U.S. Coast Guard officer)[edit]

Ken Armstrong (U.S. Coast Guard officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. No significant press coverage, little other than Libertarian Party related coverage and passing mentions. Vermont (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. US Presidential candidates, unless they're from the major parties, don't generally rise to notability, and he's no exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Armstrong is given significant non-trivial coverage in no less than 4 notable and reliable sources that are provided: [56], [57], [58], and the Pacific Stars and Stipes article which is viewable on newspapers.com (couldn't find a sharable link, but did include the pertinent details - date, author, etc. so it can be looked up). Of the ones cited, he is the main subject in more than one, and they all predate his presidential campaign. They also cover a time span of nearly a decade. That should be sufficient to establish his notability outside his campaign. It is also worth noting that none of sources that cover his campaign are affiliated with the Libertarian Party, but rather are secondary non-partisan reputable news and journalism sources. There is enough valid coverage to justify the existence of at least a stub article, and there is no compelling reason to delete it. Sal2100 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of your "notable" sources is an interview, the second barely covers anything (the writer talks about the lunch he had with the subject - must have been a slooooow news day), and the third is a mention in the announcement of the opening of a counseling center. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first is a feature story with Armstrong as the main subject, it is not done in the standard Q & A interview format. The second and third are stories deemed newsworthy (slow news day or otherwise) by sources that pass WP:GNG and seemingly pass the WP:RS sniff test. Add in the Pacific Stars and Stipes article (which can be looked up) and the significant coverage in the Reason article (Reason is a national publication), and I stand by my contention that this a WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some coverage already in 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. Maybe move to a better search term 'Ken Armstrong (Libertarian canditate)'?, leave link in Ken Armstrong, and delete or merge to the primaries article if they want any of the content. The Reason article should make it a valid search term.—eric 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a redirect to the 2020 Libertarian primaries article, and if not closed as "keep" should be restored as such. It that happens, keeping the edit history would be prudent so content can be merged as suggested. Sal2100 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being a candidate in a political party primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running as a candidate. But the sources here are not strong enough to make him much more special than other candidates: of the ten footnotes here, two are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all (never "source" anything to YouTube clips, ever!); many of the remainder are not substantively about him, but merely briefly mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about something else; and the two that are actually about him are both just short blurbs, neither substantive enough nor numerous enough to claim that he passes GNG. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates, but that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 21 November 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) 02:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami–South Florida football rivalry[edit]

Miami–South Florida football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from marketing fluff in one article on the South Florida website, absolutely no indication this is a rivalry much less a significant one, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can confirm. dibbydib 💬/✏ 03:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the reference provided in this article that proves a rivalry. UnderMyHead (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article which has a phone line to purchase tickets at the bottom? SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken UnderMyHead's "keep" vote. The user is a sockpuppet that has a history of creating dubious rivalry articles and has been indefinitely blocked. Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're talking about two schools that have never been in the same conference and don't play with anything approaching regularity pbp 04:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NRIVALRY. This series between two teams does not rise above the notability threshold for rivalries. Hog Farm (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only six all-time meetings on the field here, most of them lop-sided in favor of Miami. The only source that uses the word "rivalry" to describe the series between these two schools is a non-independent piece on USF's own website. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vorbee (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources as a rivalry. Nor does it have other the indicia of a rivalry or historically important series. There is no length of play (first game 14 years ago), no frequency of play (6 total games), no regularity (no game since 2013, none planned til 2025), no trophy, and lack of competitiveness (Miami by at least 20 points in 4 of 6 games). 12:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Forgot to sign. Belatedley adding signature now. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article would need more independent sources which would help establish that these two teams have a notable rivalry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks coverage as a rivalry. Would like the details to get included into a team page, thanks for the enthusiasm!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Simply not notable. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't an actual rivalry. Lepricavark (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that a rivalry exists here. The fact that two teams have played each other on a (semi-) regular basis does not inherently mean they have a rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 21 November 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. I will have to go with delete, based on the sources. Another possibility would be to merge, let me know if you need to access the content. Tone 09:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of the Hainish Cycle[edit]

Planets of the Hainish Cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In-universe, non-notable, plot-only minutia better suited to a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources presently in the article provide significant coverage of the topic? Absolutely none of them are used to provide real world information, which is necessary to fulfill WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Each of the secondary sources goes beyond PLOT retelling; providing critical commentary on the fictional elements is quite sufficient "real world information" per policy. As for what is currently in the article, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be three non-primary sources in the article. What commentary do they provide? You can't just claim they do when there's absolutely no proof in your response or the article. I'm sure they are fine sources for the author's works in general, but how do they help this article in particular? TTN (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources, and they discuss the planets the article is about. That suffices, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly? “Discuss” is such an open term in these discussions. It can be anything from a name drop, mentioning the locations simply in a retelling of the plot, or enough actual discussion on the individual planets to merit an article. TTN (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It usefully collects all of the planets mentioned. A lot of work to check them otherwise. That. surely, is what an encyclopedia is for.--GwydionM (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random collection of mostly unreferenced WP:PLOT elements that are never discussed in in-depth in non-fiction works. The keep voters claim 'there are good sources' but refuse to discuss them in detail or just vote 'per previous keep argument'. Closing admin should keep in mind AfD=/=vote. This kind of fancruft belongs on wikia, ex. https://hippie.wikia.org/wiki/Planets_of_the_Hainish_Cycle --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Hainish Cycle#Planets. Goustien (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Entirely in-universe plot summary using almost entirely primary sources. Even the couple of non-primary sources being used here are insufficient to pass the WP:GNG for different reasons - one appears to just be part of a fansite, the others, while mentioning a couple of planets as part of their summaries do not discuss the set in any sort of depth. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PLOT. It's really difficult to perform a WP:GNG analysis on this, none of the keep !votes are helpful in explaining why secondary sources have discussed these enough to create a full article on them, but most of the citations are from the author talking about the universe she created. I have absolutely no idea how this can be considered encyclopaedic, and is probably best moved to an entirely different wiki. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julissa Miro[edit]

Julissa Miro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BLP for a model that has no indication of notability. The only source being used is her own personal website. Doing searches turns up a few social media and business profiles, but no sources indicating notability for the individual. I had initially PRODed this, but had not realized that it had already been PRODed a decade before and contested by an IP, thus making it ineligible for another PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well... maybe. Google Books digitized a collection of the Peruvian periodical Caretas from (probably) 1999. As usual when Google Books tries to handle bound periodical volumes, it choked pretty hard trying to figure out the bibliographical information and returns nothing accurate or useful instead (I hate this so much, I wrote an essay about it!). In any case, snippet view provides us with an article apparently titled "Julissa de Moda" that begins "Aun en el competitivo mundo del modelaje venezolano, la limeña Julissa Miró Quesada Woodman destaca como modelo exclusiva de la agencia Mariela Centeno. Es desde allí que ha sido solicitada por fotógrafos y ..." That sounds promising, and Caretas is an well-regarded and reliable source, but there's no way to know from just that snippet whether that text is independent of Miro, whether it has sufficient depth of coverage, or indeed, whether it's an actual article rather than advertising copy! The best I can get Google to tell me is that this was somewhere between issue 1583-1591, so I don't even have an easy citation to look up. Meanwhile, a very much unreliable source suggests that she was also on the cover of the Mexican magazine Veintitantos in June 2001, and of the Venezuelan fashion-focused Complot (but with no date specified). I can't confirm those appearances, much less whether the periodicals in question devoted any measure of legitimate coverage to her. I'm not confident that there's sufficient coverage to warrant a keep here, but on the off chance there's someone taking note of this AFD with access to pre-Internet-era Spanish-language fashion magazines, well... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give a relist to see if solid RS can be provided for GNG; otherwise it is heading for Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, since no additional feedback since first relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough demonstrated coverage to pass WP:GNG, no prejudice on recreation if other sources end up existing. SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staya Erusa[edit]

Staya Erusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This exists, but I can find vanishingly few reliable sources that cover it. By vanishingly few I mean that the cited Stern article is the only one. Guy (help!) 01:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:39, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes H. Berg Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Johannes H. Berg Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography without indication of notability. Created in 2004, and doesn't seem to have seen a non-(semi-)automated edit since. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moving biography. Early historical example of what Wikipedia can be, in a good way. Nothing is disputed about the content of the article. —Doncram (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No non-obituary sources in the article. If other sources are found, please ping me so I can reconsider this vote. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing substantial given by a Google search. With all due respect to the keep !vote above none of those are valid reasons to keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i know about Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL as a guideline or whatever it is. As a redirect that was created in 2007 or 2008. Substantial discussion/guideline stuff along those lines was created later than this article, which I believe was fine by all standards back when it was created in 2004. We are not bound to enforce every piddling technicality that one can drum up, you know, by the way.
Note there were 9 "keep" !votes vs. just 2 "delete" (counting nominator) in 2005 first AFD. We don't have to disrespect those people either.
I wonder if this person was himself a Wikipedian, that is not mentioned. If they were, then maybe something could be done at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. The first persons covered there died in 2005.
It is also unfortunate there is only an i.p. address for the original, main contributor here. --Doncram (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect is intended for anybody involved. However, all that has been said in favor of keeping this article, both in 2005 and now, has been trivial and hasn't shown that Mr. Berg passes our notability guideline, which is not in any event a "piddling technicality". There are no grandfather clauses on Wikipedia, which is a very different place now from in 2004; all articles must meet 2019 standards, regardless of when they were created. Perhaps another website can more properly honor Mr. Berg. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly I do not think that the 2005 AFD would have muster by 2019 standards. None of them on either side cite any policy rationale or even give an actual reason other than “I don’t see any reason to delete” or “Other stuff exists”. Some of them don’t even provide a reason at all, just say ‘keep’. I personally don’t have any objection to keeping this article, but I do think that it needs better/stronger sourcing to show that it meets the WP:General Notability Guideline. It’s not enough to prove that he existed and arguments along the lines of, “A lot of people contributed to this article” or “it would be disrespectful not to have this article” aren’t good enough either. Perhaps someone with the appropriate language skills would be able to go through the article on Norwegian Wikipedia and see if the sources there can be translated and used here to strengthen this article? Omanlured (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the most egregious failure of the not memorial guidelines I have ever seen. The last few lines of this artile are totally worded as a memorial. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing memorializing obituaries which this article totally is. Articles like this are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, providing coverage of European males over people anywhere else and having an over emphasis on coverage of fantasy works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_18&oldid=1142613211"