Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 August 1 September >

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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D. There is a consensus that the article does not meet requirements to be stand-alone; equally there is not consensus to delete it, so redirecting and preserving the history. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King (DC Comics)[edit]

Dragon King (DC Comics) (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 real world notability. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is sourced to subject's entry in a print encyclopedia (on the subject of comics) published by the largest publisher in the world. Print being relevant as having finite actual space, and so an implicit notability threshold is therefore communicated; size of publisher (DK, an imprint of Penguin/Random) relevant in the sense that the article is not sourced to a self-published thing written by authors and editors of uncertain credential. Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per WP:NCOMIC: "A character or team is presumed notable and warranting of a solo article if they meet one or more of the following criteria: 3. Covered in a more than trivial manner in a published secondary source." Ford MF (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fordmadoxfraud:, I don't think you understand Wikipedia:Notability. Topics require significant coverage from third party sources in order to be suitable for Wikipedia. What you have is an almost completely in-universe article lacking any developmental material or critical reception. Simply sourcing in-universe material does not satisfy the guideline. Also see WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with User:Fordmadoxfraud that sourcing matters more than the size of the company. Big companies often have products/service that flop, but they make up for those failures through more successfully sold products/services.Knox490 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what "products that flop" have to do with the deletion debate. Ford MF (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic passes WP:GNG as the article has enough sources and there are plenty more out there such as The Encyclopedia of Supervillains. The topic should therefore be kept for further development per numerous policies including: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. WP:PRESERVE does not apply, as non-notability is an insurmountable problem per WP:CANTFIX.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of WP:CANTFIX are you referring to here? That appears to categorically be intended for other types of article issue beyond notability, and describes clear cut cases where deletion is preferable to inclusion, none of which seem to apply here. The article being discussed here is not in scope of WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO, or WP:BLP. Which one specifically do you thinka pplies here? Ford MF (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is definitely in the scope of WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTPLOT. It reads entirely as a summary of a fictional character and his appearances, without any attempt to "discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Definitely not NOT. For example, the lead of the article contains no plot at all. It has details of the authors, publisher, first appearance, casting and the like. These are all reasonably valid facts about the character which we should expect to be preserved in our coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All-Star Squadron or Stargirl (TV series). FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the minimum info to List of DC −Comics characters: D. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D. There are no sources that demonstrate any real-world notability for the character. The article is almost entirely plot summary, and none of the sources delve in depth on anything aside from that. If the character's presence in the upcoming Stargirl show ends up generating some sources that actually demonstrate real world notability, no prejudice against restoring it to a proper, stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D where Dragon King is already listed - Epinoia (talk) 04:07, 7 September 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 Eviction. Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate mobbing[edit]

Real estate mobbing (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)

Speculative article. References do not support the content. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A much better article should be created at forced eviction...this certainly isn't the right term or description for the concept at all. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge the material into eviction. Most tenants who are evicted would prefer to stay so the term "forced eviction" is a bit redundant.Knox490 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Landlord harassment is another article about this. In the UK, it used to be called Rachmanism. Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate and as suggested above. Right now it's a mere definition. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 3 September 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premises[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Premises (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)

Poor quality dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - AFD is not cleanup. Besides the history of the word which related to the part of a deed for the transfer of land, the term is used in property law, tort law, and depending on the country, other legislative concepts (e.g. there is Australian legislation where the term is relevant for liquor licensing, and primary industry). Bookscale (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur with User:Bookscale. Article serves a useful purpose and I can see where it would be useful to many people.Knox490 (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a perfectly valid legal stub start of an article. It's been viewed almost 3,000 times in the past 30 days, so our readers are looking for it, on average 100 times a day. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An important and notable legal concept clearly deserving of an independent article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:30, 5 September 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 as a WP:POVFORK. Introduction of any relevant material into another article is fine, but the usual sourcing, POV, etc. rules will apply regardless of what article the material is in. RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests[edit]

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (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)

Recently created article that is a WP:POVFORK of International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. It's not appropriate to have a criticism-only article. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article isn't really "criticism", but more like a biased collection of news reports. No specific criticism from any person or party regarding the protests. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson's comment answers this criticism. Ltyl (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — Ltyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Ltyl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • I'd like comment on two points 1) That page is not criticism-only. It is not criticism at all. It's a list of allegations of the uses of aggressive tactics. If it reads like criticism, that's because the tactics do look too aggressive in some cases - the wording has mostly been faithful paraphrase of the sources. 2) It is very much in the spirit of this page where the police misconducts are documented. As the latter page is live and well, I don't see why the Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests page should be deleted. Ltyl (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is WP:DUE, so is the page in discussion. I believe the page in discussion is a very significant part of the story that explains, in no small part, how the event escalates. I don't mind merging the two pages or the two pages with other pages that provide additional perspectives, but I strongly disagree that this page is either WP:POVFORK or WP:UNDUE. Ltyl (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have even more forks like Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (largely written by the same two contributors). Here we get such exceptionally neutral language like Protesters are reported to have adopted Bruce Lee’s philosophy, to be "formless [and] shapeless, like water", which is somehow supposed to not be meaningless tripe. And then we have not one, but three (1, 2, 3) lists of individual protests. These so thoroughly overlap in their recounting of blatant news that in one section we've felt the need to include four hat notes to individual sections on the other articles. We've also gone ahead and started a fourth list for September before we even have anything to put there. Besides the fact that none of these are even lists at all. They're just breaking things down in the most minute time frames possible so that we have more space to put news stories.
It is difficult to adequately express the extent to which this is far and away the most egregious violation of WP:NOTNEWS I have ever seen. GMGtalk 12:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is an article about on-going protests ... of which there are sometimes daily occurrences. Fortunately, the overflow of information can eventually be summarized and condensed by experienced editors. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit it's too much like a newspaper, and obviously, too much details. Some merging and condensation is needed for all of the sub-articles, but it will take a lot of effort - professional and experienced editors are needed. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC
@Wefk423: This level of detail may be appropriate for WikiNews, which despite being nearly 15 years old, continues to struggle as a project, and could greatly benefit from increased participation by motivated contributors. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, doesn't seek to provide a book-length examination of a subject in exhaustive detail, or to over-emphasize the importance of recent event. Instead, Wikipedia provides value in being able to condense complex topics into a concise and accessible overview, to quickly take the reader from ignorance to familiarity. Alternatively, a project like WikiNews seeks to provide up-to-the-minute details of recent events, and a project like WikiBooks seeks to provide a depth of coverage that an encyclopedia article cannot. So that's not to say that the content isn't educationally useful, but merely that, in order to provide a coherent educational resource, each of these projects necessarily has limits on scope and format. GMGtalk 13:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, very much condense and put in perspective It has lots of decent sources and provides some useful information, but the material should be condensed and merged with the main article on the subject. Wikipedia should also give the material the weight it deserves. For example, about what percentage of the protestors are violent? Is is just a relative small percentage of protestors who are violent? I also notice that the creator of the article is a one issue editor - namely this Hong Kong riot. The person could be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and government employee wanting to shape public opinion via Wikipedia. The material essentially covers two issues: violent protestors and doxxing. Do we really need a whole article to cover this. And I have heard reports of the police beating protestors. And the Chinese Communist Party: tortures political/religious dissidents: engages in involutary organ removal and subsequent sales or the organs; demolishes churches; has set up involuntary reeducation camps and has set up a police surveillance state. China is just reaping what it sowed in Hong Kong and the people are justifiably concerned/angry about the Chinese suppressing political/religious freedom.Knox490 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490: This comment contains serious personal attack without proof, which is in violation of WP:NPA policy. And starting from the personal attack ("The person could be a member...") this comment is basically POV jibberish that is irrelevant to this discussion. This vote should be disqualified simply based on WP:NPA in my opinion. The question "about what percentage of the protesters are violent" is tangentially relevant to WP:DUE, but really it is neither here nor there. The percentage is NOT always relevant. The violence has an unproportionally large effect in shaping the evolution of the event. I dare say, despite the hype about police brutality, it is also a very small part of police conducts. However, again it plays a much larger role. As cited in the article, hundreds of doxxing cases against the police/families have been referred to further investigations, and violence has become a recurrent theme. I don't see how this information is not WP:DUE. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions regarding the PRC are irrelevant to deletion discussions, nor should AfD be used to circumvent WP:NPOV and introduce WP:SYNTH by proposing, without reliable sources, that discussion of violence from protesters should be framed as being the fault of the PRC. Please stay on topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into the "international reactions" article. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article is NOT the 'reactions' from anyone, despite suggested otherwise by the word 'criticism' in the title. It is a compilation of the notable reports from the news. However, I don't object to merging the article with other balanced articles. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge Critical responses to the Hong Kong protests are notable, but best included in the main article in succinct form.TH1980 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TH1980: I don't disagree with this, but believe that said action should be considered together with other articles such as Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests to provide unbiased discussion. Also, I need to point out that 'Critical response' is not a precise characterisation of the article. Again, it is a compilation of notable reports from the news. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge any notably new material. Following John M Wolfson's comments above, the original title "Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" very much sounds like a WP:POVFORK of Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and WP:UNDUE; whether the actions are "aggressive" or "abusive" forms of civil disobedience techniques used against unresponsive governments and police, in HK or elsewhere around the world, or whether they are really "tactics" or not, or whether they are proportionate to the threat and urgency, are questions that go more into (at present) the "Reactions" article - PRC policy aims to discredit 30% of HK's population as "violent rioters". The tactics themselves (if they are tactics) make sense in the "Tactics" article. (As mentioned at Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Government tactics and methods, it might be worth it to WP:SPLIT off the PRC part of "Reactions" into a "PRC/HK governmental tactics ..." article, after choosing a reasonable name. The tactics of the PRC/HK governments in this context are a notable topic, no matter whether they are respectful of human rights and the international legal principle of self-determination or not.) Boud (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: This comment is mostly about the title of the article, so I assume that the editor has no objection to the majority part of the content of the article. Several points: 1) I don't mind changing the title. I'm not attached to the word 'tacitcs' either. I believe 'aggressive acts' can also be an accurate characterisation of the reports in cited sources. 2) The WP:POVFORK charge, I believe, is not supported by the history of the pages and the facts. First of all, a condensed version of same contents is included in the Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests page, without objection, so far at least. This means there is NO pov disagreement, hence NO WP:POVFORK. 3) Regarding the WP:UNDUE charge, I'm hard pressed to see any supporting argument in the comment. Without further clarification I'm not able to respond properly, but I'll refer back to my other comments posted above. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is repeating many of the information from the tactics page and to be honest, all the accusations are written in a way that feel like an indiscriminate list of details and events that can be easily summarized. If you ask me, I will say that other than the timeline articles and Hong Kong Way, all other subpages should be merged back to the main page. OceanHok (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok: I welcome further improvements to the article (including changing the title). Regarding the indiscriminate charge, I'm afraid a lot of honest articles on WP are not immute to this charge (The allegations of police misconduct comes to mind again). There is a small sweet spot between WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In any case, I'm not certain at all indiscriminate is a sufficient ground for deleting the page given the reality of WP articles. I'm not against merging this and all the other articles back to the main page, except for the minor concern about the size of the page. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok: Due to article size, it may worth to leave a few sub-articles not merging back to the main article. But yes, some detail should throw away as people are expected to read citations for more detail. Matthew hk (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge Merged to the [International] reactions page. [International] reactions lacks reaction not from nations (such as the website leaks key pro-protest figures' personal information, SCMP covered the news). Mariogoods (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Again, the page is not 'response' from any parties, as explained multiple times already. Ltyl (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR on listing lots of event. A new version my be restart by summarizing criticism by notable people and organization, and detail may be not that required, due to overlap with other sub-articles. Matthew hk (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the WP:OR charge. No evidence supports this. Again, the page is not 'criticism' despite the title. See previous comments. Ltyl (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Ltyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Ltyl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
As a new user (or a sock account i don't know), i advised you to read WP:synthesis. Summarized lots of news article and made conclusion that were not appeared in the news article, is an original research that is forbidden in wikipedia. Talking about Afd matter, the article was bold move to Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, which may worth to restart after deletion of the current OR content. While Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, the original article title, may worth for a school thesis project, but have no place in wikipedia. Only summary of external criticism and accusation may worth to remain in wikipedia, but not the thesis by the wiki editors. Matthew hk (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conceded I should probably have added 'allegations' in the title. However, I would not accept broad and vague accusations like WP:synthesis or WP:OR without any evidence. As I said above, you did not provide evidence re. WP:OR. It is not a good-faith discussion if you make the accusation but do not provide any proof. To move things forward, let me guess what you are trying to say: are you saying the adjectives 'aggressive' or 'abusive' are WP:OR or WP:synthesis? Well I would say this is debatable. Given the evidence provided in the article, I think these words are appropriate description of the behaviours/tactics. Ltyl (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPA sometimes has been thrown around in the discussion. I'm not sure what it is intended. Is this an insinuation that I am biased? That's itself an interesting bias. Ltyl (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is quite self explanatory. No edits outside the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (and sub-articles), newly registered and created this article. For content, listing detail of actions as supports of the criticism by the wiki editors, is not allowed. In your article, is full of detail and lack of notable critics and pro-government politicians to condemn the protesters. However, for the latter, as other people said, it may worth to merge with International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, which being under WP:RM. Matthew hk (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA does not explain the insinuation. Anyway, you are welcome to scrutinize my articles. I'm not sure if your comment For content, listing detail of actions as supports of the criticism by the wiki editors, is not allowed is relevant. Did I make any criticism in the article? I don't think so. As I expalined multiple times already, the article is not about criticism, and the title is not my original title. Can you please specify which part you think is a criticism or WP:OR or WP:synthesis? Without knowing your argument, I'm not able to lay out my counter argument. Ltyl (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is quite related to WP:NOTHERE. Please check that. Narrow area of interest are allowed , but SPA may be not. Your original title Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, already a criticism by yours, and the content are content fork. Matthew hk (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is not a policy, and I'm not certain at all that it could be the basis of WP:NOTHERE. OK, so you ARE saying the title is the 'criticism' you are referring to. I am not certain I agree with that, but I could go a long with the title alleged aggressive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. As for the content are content fork, I'm not sure I agree. As I said above, Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is live and well. It's important to also give suitable weights to other sides of the story that has been widely reported. Ltyl (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Overlap is policy (edit: a well agreed practice hat have quasi-policy status 15:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)) WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE, are quasi-policies that people quoting it as rationale to block people from editing wikipedia in WP:ANI. If you encounter any edit dispute on International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which being RM to just Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Matthew hk (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point of these off-topic comment, is, being so narrow area of interest on one and only one topic as well as WP:POVFORK as well as so strongly protect your own content in this Afd, would quickly eroding AGF on you by other editors, as well as may be quickly attract endorsement of topic ban or even block at ANI. I endorsed that there is lack of summary and criticism of the violent act of some protesters, but the article is clearly cut WP:POVFORK that labelling all protesters are violent. WP:POVFORK is a well written content guideline that editor should followed. And yes WP:NPOV is another policy so that violent acts of some protesters should be reflected in the article and the sub articles of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, but not forking a rival version of sub-article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you could elaborate on the WP:POVFORK charge. It's common practice on WP to wirte a summary on a main article and then link to an article that provides more details. Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is such an example, but not the only one. My article follows this practice. I believe this fact alone is not sufficient for the WP:POVFORK charge. To show WP:POVFORK I believe you need to show there was an POV disagreement in the tactics and method article, where my article supposedly forked from. But there wasn't one. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not put words in my mouth - the article I wrote did no such thing as labelling all protesters are violent. I am very frustrated by the fact that it seems you haven't read the article despite making multiple charges. I feel that it's you who don't want to see anything unfaverable to the protesters, and react so strongly to what I wrote. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't see anything wrong to defend what I wrote. Ultimatley, the fate of the artilce will be decided by the majority vote. However, this thread is the exact place to argue. Banning me solely based on my argments in this threads clearly would be a gross violation of WP policy. Good faith is shown by honest arguments and reasonable intepretation of what others say. It's not shown by being submissive to others' opinions. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd challenge the assertion that it's common practice to have such a large cluster of articles even on as complicated a current event as the HK protests. The fact that we needed to create a navigation sidebar last week just to keep track of all the sub-pages is actually quite uncommon within Wikipedia. This entire series of articles could use some (very careful) paring down to a more reasonable length - because as it stands it's becoming an indiscriminate list of everything the newsmedia has said about Hong Kong in the last three months, and that's not encyclopedic gold standard by any means. As such, avoiding additional content forks, regardless of the POV label, is probably to the benefit of our treatment of the subject. That said, if there's an issue with anti-China POV hardliners trying to exclude mention of the well-covered and definitely due mention violence that happened throughout the protests and in particular this weekend, that should be addressed at the appropriate talk pages. (I should note, I just got back from a long weekend and have not looked yet. This is only in response to argument at this page.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that a consensus is emerging that the contents on the protests should be pared down. It's a positive outcome of this discussion. Ltyl (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Don't see any reason to delete valuable information from the encyclopedia.80.111.165.52 (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are new, you can read WP:Deletion policy and WP:What wikipedia is not. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, given that a summary section on Tactics and Methods has been added to the main page. It would seem there is room to flesh out the Tactics and Methods subpage a bit more. So it would seem appropriate to merge the article in this AfD discussion back to the Tactics and Methods subpage. Ltyl (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I'm not seeing any WP:OR here - it seems rather odd to delete this particular subset of content and to merge everything else. That would impact WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the content from this article is merged (instead of deleted) then I would highly suggest that it is very stringently fact checked (before any merge), and that all references are carefully looked over to make sure that the claims being made in the wiki article match up with what the reliable sources are (or, are not) actually saying. Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, as we should for any other articles, especially all the articles surrounding the protests. Ltyl (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your accusations there were factually problems, please provide evidence. I'm confident that the article has no more factual problems than any other articles on this event. Making accusations without evidence is not good-faith discussion. Ltyl (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at the edit history for Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Confrontational tactics ... yesterday I found some sources that did not support stated claims about violence by protesters ... making broad statements with vague claims about violence by protesters, and then some of those sources don't even hold up. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your characterisation. Your changes actually are not reflected by the reports. You claimed I mis-stated the news reports but actually you are associating my writing with wrong sources. 1) MTR employees' information was leaked on the internet. This is reported in SCMP. 2) Your edit 'White-shirted bystander' is wrong, because there were other bystanders being assaulted in other occasions, and the latter is what I referred to. Ltyl (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next time when you make an accusation, I'd expect you to be as specific as my response I have just written above. Ltyl (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltyl: I was very specific in the edit summaries. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be as specific when you make accusations on this page then. Ltyl (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltyl: Just amazing ... following my comment above about fact-checking before any merge (prior to any consensus decision was reached here) you went ahead and started merging into the main article! This is definitely not how consensus works. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about good-faith we can talk about good faith. If you want to talk about rules we can also talk about rules. If we are talking about rules, then clearly you are mis-stating the the fact. I did not violate any rules. I didn't merge the 'criticism' page into the main page. I added the content on the 'Tactics and methods' page into the main page - the content you also edited and fact-checked. If you want to talk about good faith, how about the act of merging "the allegations of police misconducts" page into the main page? It's clear that some editors have proposed to delete it. However, it was merged back to the main page without any discussion. Is it a good faith edit? My edit is made with as much good faith as it was. Ltyl (talk) 18:16, 7 September 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 due to lack of independent coverage to demonstrate notability. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl and Edgar McGraw[edit]

Earl and Edgar McGraw (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)

Violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Almost entirely composed of fancruft - original research and extensive plot description, with almost no out-of-universe coverage and no demonstration of notability.

This nom follows the deletion of another similar article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination). Popcornduff (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without sources discussing real world relevance, this article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is in very poor shape yes, but these characters appear in several high profile films and in a way create a tounge in cheek "shared universe" of sorts, I would be suprised if there is not some kind of coverage of these characters.★Trekker (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, first the Kill Bill character page, and now what's left? Keep per Trekker's observations that these characters create a shared universe bond between several films, and per common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Popcornduff's inability to prove notability. The article has never had any sources that relate to the characters, likely because there are none whatsoever. A PROD was attempted in October 2008 but contested on grounds of perceived potential for notability, contrary to the PRODder's presumed findings. The characters are not strongly related enough to one topic for a redirect, though this may not be true for the individual characters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The characters are father and son played by a father and son over the course of several films. Seem to be strongly related. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaundryPizza03 means the topic of the article (the two characters) is not related enough to a single subject (such as Kill Bill or Death Proof) to redirect the article. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. I disagree with Trekker's comment because whether or not a character appears in high-profile media or a shared universe is not relevant to this conversation. I also disagree with the "common sense" remark. A more convincing "keep" argument would cite sources that discuss these characters in a way to prove substantial coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I could not see anything, but if this information is provided, I would be more than happy to change my vote. However, right now, I agree with Popcornduff and LaundryPizza03. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aoba47.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are really no reliable sources that discuss either of the characters in any more depth than brief plot summary. Despite appearing in several movies, their roles in most of these were extremely brief, so this is not particularly surprising. As Aoba47 states, its the coverage from reliable third-party sources that would establish notability for these character, and that does not appear to exist. Rorshacma (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - according to WP:FICTION, the WP:GNG applies to fictional characters - there is not enough significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 7 September 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 deleted by RHaworth. kingboyk (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bold for Delphi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bold for Delphi (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)

Declined PROD due to previously having been at AfD. Nominator's rationale was "Not notable. There are no independent sources". kingboyk (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 31 August 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 Letterboxing. After merging, redirect to Quest -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see WP:COPYWITHIN for instruction on how to provide proper attribution for the merge if the redirect isn't the usual. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questing[edit]

Questing (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 found nothing that shows such a game ever existing. SL93 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly Taewangkorea (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found plenty, but the in-depth coverage was almost all (co-)written by Steven Glazer, one of the inventors of the Vermont programme. Hello Sbglazer (talk · contribs)!

    It took Hall 2011, pp. 2, 100 to put this into proper context. This is letterboxing transported to the United States in 1989 before the U.S. came to commonly know it by that name in 1998. It clearly is out of context here standalone, so much so that the nominator could not locate sources on it. (The other two particpants here do not mention what steps they took to look.) Our article on letterboxing barely touches upon the "pre-Smithsonian" version in the U.S., and could do with some of this.

    Personally I would merge it there, much of it being verifiable from Hall 2011, pp. 2, 100 which states more than this article even does (such as that this was the first U.S. letterboxing programme by a decade), and redirect this to the obvious quest. No deletion by an administrator required.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hall, Randy (2011). Letterboxer's Companion: Exploring the Mysteries Hidden in the Great Outdoors (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780762774890.
  • Merge with Letterboxing and redirect this page to Quest per Uncle G. TheBigBadBird (talk) 11:48, 8 September 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) 20:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Galan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eddie Galan (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 BLP with currently not even a single reliable/independent source that significant covers this in the references section. By looking at the username of the creator, this page is possibly an autobiography written in a promotional language. A Google search of Eddie Galan reveals nearly no reliable, independent, and significant coverage. William2001(talk) 19:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 31 August 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 Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music industry of North America[edit]

Music industry of North America (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 don't quite know what to do about this one. The article has the bones of a usable text, with apposite facts linked to sensible references. Inconveniently, that structure is buried under an avalanche of frankly cringeworthy prose, wild assertions, commonplaces and screwy grammar. It requires a complete rewrite. If someone believes they can deliver that, be my guest, but I think it basically needs to be nuked and restarted. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think ‘Music industry of the United States’ and ‘Music industry of Canada’ would both be valid topics, but I’m not sure that ‘Music industry of North America’ is. If the article is about the industry I’d expect it to focus mainly on studio production, distribution and corporate matters, but this article mixes up the music business with material on styles and genres as well as individual artists. If the current article was split in two and stripped right down we’d have two decent short articles, each something like Music industry of East Asia. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as this article was created by a student studying OLES2129 (hi Hannahanaaaa), would it okay to draftify this so that they can work on it over the rest of the semester and the wikieditor that are looking after these students can assist? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objections - if a usable article comes out of it, all the better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some useful proposals, let's give it some more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I agree that this article has some useful content in it, but in it's current state its better suited as a draft. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The countries of USA/Canada are very influential to each other when it comes to culture/commerce or at very least the USA has a big influence given the size of its population. And with the new upcoming trade agreement the countries will be even more tied together. They both speak the same language with the exception of Quebec. Wikipedia's article called Culture of Canada says "The population has also been influenced by American culture because of a shared language, proximity, television and migration between the two countries". Maybe the creator of the article knows if the big corporate music transational companies in the USA sell a lot or a ton of their music in Canada. And the web is used extensively in the music industry via Facebook/YouTube so Canadians/Americans are seeing a lot of the same material. And if you ever look at the Google Canada and Google USA search results, they are extremely similar. In addition, both countries have seen a big influx of immigrants so there is that in common. One of the big differences though is that USA has much more of a Hispanic influence on its music due to its large and growing Hispanic population (Obviously, the USA has a lot more illegal/legal immigrants from Central/South America).Knox490 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that the question as far as I can tell is not one of notability, but rather it is whether or not we should draftify this article per WP:TNT. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for a split. Being influenced by another country is not a reason for combining into one article. By this logic, United States and Canada should be merged. The Canadian music industry has its own awards (Junos vs Grammys), charts, etc., etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although it could be split into two articles for USA and Canada - North America includes Mexico and the Central American countires, so to be inclusive those countries should be included in an article on "Music industry of North America" - we have other articles covering large geographic areas, such as Music industry of Asia and Music industry of East Asia; as well as a general article on Music industry - oddly, there are no articles on music industry by country; for example, Music industry in the Republic of Ireland redirects to Music of Ireland and Music Industry in Pakistan redirects to Music of Pakistan; so it may be appropriate to move the article to Music Industry of the United States as the US music industry is a significant industry and deserves its own article, and merge the Canadian material into Music of Canada - Epinoia (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There is material in here that can be used in one of two new articles. The idea that the existing article should be expanded to include other countries makes no sense to me. There simply is no music industry ‘of’ North America and a proposed extension would only be valid under a title like ‘Music industry in North America.’ If we’re going for that we should ensure we have a section on the music industry in Greenland too. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 7 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Today[edit]

Sylhet Today (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 regional online newspaper/blog that was deleted and recreated in less than a week. Sources used do not show that the site meets the current notability guidelines and I found nothing more from Google. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.--Nahal(T) 08:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per WP:CSD#A7. Non notable newspaper in Bangladesh, fail WP:NMEDIA. Does not meet WP:GNG. no significant coverage also this is a local news paper. --Nahal(T) 08:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a Google search for it and believe that it's quite notable. Mainarwalker 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mainarwalker (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
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) 18:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amadhia Albee[edit]

Amadhia Albee (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 appears to fail both WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. The sources currently are two blog posts by the article subject, an animator who self-produced a short independent film. Looking for new ones, this is a wikipedia mirror, this, this, and this are brief mentions, this and this are interviews, and this is a press release. Although promotional profiles call Albee a Peabody Award-winning artist for work on "Battlestar Galactica", the award went to the show as a whole and Albee was not mentioned by name.[1] gnu57 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches for "Amadhia Albee" and also "Timothy Albee" produce no obvious evidence of notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. I tried searching for her under various combinations of her name in the databases but I found nothing her significant work. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG.Ms.bletvok (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Found no reliable source. Barca (talk) 22:36, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estate liquidation[edit]

Estate liquidation (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)

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. I found an academic journal article about the topic. I found a book about the topic. I found a newspaper article about the topic. This article in the Washington Post says that "The field of professionals in estate liquidation includes appraisers and evaluators of various types of belongings; estate sale specialists; auction houses; cleanout companies that sort, pack, transport, distribute and discard; and charitable organizations that accept property donations." When a topic is notable but the article about it is poorly referenced, the solution is to improve the article rather than to delete it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is not only notable but will grow in notability as time goes on due to the aging population in the Western World. In addition as per User: Cullen there is an academic journal article about the topic. In addition, User: Cullen found an entire book about the topic. User: Cullen also found a newspaper article about the topic. What really convinced me though that the article is a keeper is User: Cullen mentioning The article in the Washington Post indicating that "The field of professionals in estate liquidation includes appraisers and evaluators of various types of belongings; estate sale specialists; auction houses; cleanout companies that sort, pack, transport, distribute and discard; and charitable organizations that accept property donations." So it is a distinct field worthy of an article of its own. And I wholeheartedly agree with User: Cullen that improvement of articles should be looked at first before deleting the article. The lifeblood of Wikipedia is editors and if people see their work vaped arbitrarily, they are going to stop being Wikipedians.Knox490 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - literally whole libraries of books, for both attorneys and laypersons, have been written about the topic. See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting the topic isnt notable, but the article is entirely unreferenced. If there are lots of books, presumably there are disagreements about issues. How can we assess what is stated in the article? Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some relevant policies that apply WP:BEFORE WP:ATD WP:NOTCLEANUP The fact that it is unreferenced is not cause for deletion per WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time we edit an article we are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The policy you quote says "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)" This article appears to have been unreferenced for 11 years. There are a surprising number of articles about property law in the same position. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder:Seems the above ivoters disagree with your position. But I agree someone should undertake the referencing. However that is not grounds for deletion per WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding refs to the intro. Wm335td (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Marwah[edit]

Akshay Marwah (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 businessperson. Comes from a family of film-makers and all the notability that he has is in the shared glory of his family members. Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of indepth coverage in independent and reliable sources Jupitus Smart 17:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article does not seem to pass WP:N (WP:ANYBIO). Most of the news/web articles I found on Google web/news search do not support anything directly, hence I feel the article is not yet notable. Regards. Titodutta (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, The subject has done many trivial things but none of them noteworthy. his films did not get any notable awards. He has been covered solely because of his family tree and this Times of India article sums up whatever he has done, which unfortunately isn't notable. If in future he does something notable, then probably the article can be WP:REFUNDed but only if the refunding admin is convinced that the notability has been reasonably established. Currently it is not. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League lore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
National Hockey League lore (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)
List based article entirely consisting of original research to make an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The fact that the entire Talk page is trying to decide what is and isn't "lore" kind of shows that this entire list can ONLY be defined by original research.

See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination) and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive74#Hockey lore: time to discuss?. Yosemiter (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of article: discussions after the last deletion discussion didn't produce any criteria for including anecdotes on the page, and subsequent attempts to establish criteria have failed to garner any participation. In some sense this is not too surprising, as I'm not clear what objective standards could be used. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As with the NFL article, this article fails WP:NOT (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and is full of WP:OR. Anything important enough can be included in NHL history or individual articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no criteria set out for what is constitutes "events deemed notable or memorable to the history of the National Hockey League." It's all original research, and anything important enough already has its own article or is noted elsewhere. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the article, but that was during a time in which I thought that such pages were acceptable on Wikipedia (read: NFL lore page). As the NFL lore page is gone now, I knew it was just a matter of time for this one.
What I think we should instead focus on is making more NHL individual pages for notable games and events, ala NFL (Read: Freezer Bowl, Music City Miracle, etc). The same way that we have for the Miracle on Manchester, Good Friday Massacre, etc. I understand that it's still hard to say what is "notable" among fans. And that list should be rightfully stripped down from what's included in this page. What might be acceptable for inclusion are games that are established in hockey media. Everyone knows the "Too Many Men" game, or the aforementioned Miracle On Manchester, etc). Or the Wayne Gretzky and Patrick Roy trades, as the Herschel Walker trade is considered relevant enough to have its own page, etc.
Hockey media and lore is just smaller, and not as established, and it's less popular overall in North America. So establishing notable NHL events is going to be harder. Even if like many of us (in the eyes of a hockey fan), you grew up knowing them, and their importance.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StrangeApparition2011: I'd support individual articles about some of the events, so long as they have notability and enough references to back them up. I'll agree that some would be difficult to sustain, but others (like the Gretzky trade) have more than enough to create an article, a good one even. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:19, 2 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of vegans (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)

Quite frankly an instance of listcruft. One specific person's diet doesn't tend to be a prominent trait. Wikipedia isn't supposed to just compile trivia like this per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speedy keep" is WAY too hasty, and so is your "the nomination should be dismissed as frivolous" remark. This has nothing to do with liking/not liking matters. How in the world does this meet WP:LISTN when any citations used are more for confirming an individual's diet than collectively discussing groups of vegans? The "not policy" bit also feels like a cop-out. As for the previous AFD, its outcome disregarded how trivial one's eating habits are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further procedural points. Firstly, the nomination was initially made using the PROD process. That is specifically for uncontroversial deletions but this page has existed for over 15 years, has about 700 citations and over 2,000 editors. Secondly, neither the PROD nor this nomination were notified to the page's creator or any other contributor. The idea was presumably to nominate the page for silent deletion and hope that no-one would notice. Flouting WP:BEFORE and common courtesy on such flimsy grounds seems quite disruptive. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ARTICLEAGE is irrelevant to whether something would be a controversial deletion or should be kept. Same goes for the number of editors. Not sure what to say on citation count. Anyway, the PROD was done because I hadn't noticed any prior AFD (which was my mistake). One also is not required to notify others of deletion, it just is often encouraged. There actually wasn't anything disruptive about the nomination. I simply was looking to delete an article that didn't appear to be warranted, and fully expected others to notice that it was being considered for deletion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I suppose the nominator doesn't care that the page gets about 500 readers each day and so has had over a million readers in the last few of those years. So, in that view, all those thousands of editors and hundreds of thousands of readers count for nothing and so it would be uncontroversial to make the page just go away without notification or discussion. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. My view remains that such behaviour is quite disruptive and my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:POPULARPAGE with regard to page views. A better basis for something being a controversial or uncontroversial deletion would be the content itself and any prominence it might have. How many readers an article attracts is a moot point on keeping or deleting it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POPULARPAGE states that "article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify". In other words, it's a good clue. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likely to correspond" is NOT the same thing as a guarantee something should be kept, and "should then be straightforward" isn't a synonym for "is straightforward". The more important part I was trying to get at was how it reads just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope. Perhaps I should've been more explicit before. Anyway, this is because the views don't affect what the content itself contains or the quality/depth of its accompanying citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, this "speedy keep" nonsense has to come to an end. You are beginning to make me think you are not competent to understand that the clearly defined, very narrow criteria listed at WP:CSK apply to hardly any, if not none, of the AFDs where you !vote this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had the full seven days now and notice that there's not been a single !vote to delete the page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We previously deleted the category structure that corresponded to this list, though category inclusion is far more strict than for lists so that isn't dispositive in and of itself. There is no doubt that the practice of veganism is notable, or that this is verifiable information for many notable individuals. So the question is the informational value of compiling it for such individuals together. It is something that tends to be noted within an individual's article as it is an uncommon practice, though unless they are an activist or particularly outspoken about it there usually wouldn't be much to say about it. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree practice itself is notable enough for its own article as you've linked to. What I don't agree with is editors simply adding vegan diets into people's articles solely because they can source that. It goes against WP:NOTADIARY. Because of your "unless they are an activist or particularly outspoken about it there usually wouldn't be much to say about it" comment, it would be best to only mention it in the pages of individuals who are in fact vegan activists and maybe those who are highly outspoken on the matter. This oftentimes isn't the case for specific persons. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no prohibition on including facts in articles just because we can't elaborate on it, and from what I've seen I think you're often going to be on the losing side on inclusion as it's being decided case by case for individual articles. Just speaking practically, the approach that this fact shouldn't even be mentioned anywhere for most people is going to serve as a polarizing distraction from the merits of this list, and that's all this AFD is here to decide. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point with WP:NOTADIARY is that not every detail on a person is worth mentioning. That page says "news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary". As for this list, it seems to only include vegans just because they're verified to go by the diet. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I just say this list was conceived as a sub-article of List of vegetarians. If the decision is made to delete this list then the entries should be re-integrated back into List of vegetarians, because currently vegans are not actually logged at the mother article despite being vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personal diets tend to change and morph over a lifetime. Even when a source reports they are vegan it is temporal in nature. The list should reflect this somehow, that it is a list of people who at one time reported a vegan diet. Diff. -- GreenC 17:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An individual's veganism is often made a point of in media, so the list is hardly a trivial collection of random facts, and it is comparable to List of animal rights advocates. Inclusion criteria for who is on the list is clearly defined. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of sources treat this topic as a group, lots of people consider it a defining characteristic, and it seems easy enough to source. No opinion at this point as to its relationship to the list of vegetarians. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but restrict to covering Westerners in the article. India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together so being an Indian vegetarian isn't particular notable/differentiating (Edelstein, Sari (2013). Food Science, An Ecological Approach. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Page 281. ISBN 978-1-4496-0344-1. “...India has more vegetarians than everywhere else in the world combined.” ). There are several compelling reasons to keep the article in Wikipedia. First and foremost, it definitely is made a point of in the media and this is not going to change. Veganism is very ecofriendly and a lot of journalists feel passionate about the environment. Plus, it is notable to the press because vegans stand out from the norm. If you don't think being a vegan makes you stand out, try attending a family Thanksgiving dinner as a vegan. Second, the medical/nutritional community is stacking up evidence that a plant based diet is healthier and we live in a celebrity culture where celebrities exert a lot of societal influence and for better or worse there is a high interest in celebrities. The article has racked up 25,000 views in the last 60 days for example. Knox490 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490: this article is about vegans, so the № of vegetarians in India is not really an issue. --Nessie (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion is a matter for the talk page to resolve, not us here, but if it's unremarkable where someone is from it is also unlikely to be stated specifically about them in a source. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many reliable sources and many vegans themselves consider veganism to be a defining characteristic. The inclusion criteria are well-defined and changes to the list itself are monitored and promptly policed. As for restricting it to Westerners, because so many Indians are vegetarian, that is a red herring (or plant-base herring substitute), as few of those Indian vegetarians are actually vegan. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't speedy keep No strong opinion on what to do with the page, but I would encourage the closer to disregard any bad-faith "speedy keep" !votes, unless they take the form of WP:SNOW remarks and come after dozens of "keep" !votes and no "delete" !votes save the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sjakkalle. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is well-referenced, easy to read, and very popular. Veganism is a set of beliefs, and not just a diet. It is just as much a defining trait as one’s political affiliation or religion. --Nessie (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As defining as political/religious beliefs? Not sure I'd go so far to say that unless we're talking about vegan activists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of people don't have strong political/religious beliefs. Instead they may be passionate about their lifestyle. By the way, veganism can also be political. And I'd like to reiterate that veganism is not a diet. People should read the definition or the guidelines first before starting a discussion. Do people also try to delete the list of atheists because they are believers?User:GeneralArmorus 7 September 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RS Also: Knox490 has a good point regarding non-westerner vegans. Lightburst (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson, Betty Logan and WP:IDLI. Miniapolis 13:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People get coverage for this aspect of them. Dream Focus 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand nominator's rationale and I too would prefer an encyclopedia to not have articles on such a great number of lists but since the current policies of Wikipedia allow the contrary, we should keep and improve them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - although there is not a specific guideline for this list, I think some principles apply - Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists says, "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation" citing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - WP:CAT/R says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." WP:BLPCAT says "these principles apply equally to lists" - so to have a list of vegans we have to confirm that living people have publicly self-identified as vegans and that for dead people there are reliable sources confirming that they were vegan - also, because vegan is a dietary choice, living people can change their minds and adopt other diets; how will the list be maintained to ensure that those listed are still vegans? - Epinoia (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sjakkalle. SunnyBoi (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Mehrad[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined. Actor with no coverage in independent reliable sources in Persian or English. Just passing mentions. Fails WP:NACTOR. Farhikht (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Zhaleh[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Actor who had minor roles in insignificant TV series. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Search in Persian gives nothing important. Just some interviews with non reliable sources around his activities on Instagram. Farhikht (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG, no sources, appears to be a potential fancruft Michepman (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete He is just a Influencer on Instagram!!! Not a notable voice actor, not any sources!صدیق صبري (talk) 09:48, 7 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musata[edit]

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

DJ with no coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Search in Persian shows nothing. Farhikht (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 31 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Public School[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the article has more serious problems which suggest to me it should be deleted regardless (without prejudice to recreation as a balanced, neutral, well-sourced article if WP:GNG is met); there is no content of any great merit worth salvaging.

  • The article started in 2012 with some quite serious accusations against living persons and 7 years later still wears a disputed tag.
  • Of the 2 references which were provided, one was dead, available on Archive.org, but removed by me as not a reliable source; the other is also a dead link which does not appear to be archived.
  • NPOV violation: A Google News search yielded few results, but the top results mention the school as one of several private schools with a student that achieved excellent exam results[2][3]. One does not get any impression of excellence from the article as it stands. kingboyk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search has yielded zero results with sourcing. The NPOV violations also strengthen my delete rationale. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:37, 31 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz Zaman[edit]

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

He created some insignificant TV series and won some minor awards but fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Search in Persian gives nothing reliable. Farhikht (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete his native language is Farsi, and Farsi Wikipedia didn't accept him as a notable person!صدیق صبري (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nazanin Solhjoo[edit]

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


Actress with no significant roles in movies. A search in Persian shows almost nothing. Farhikht (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 31 August 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 Mortgage. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credit tenant lease[edit]

Credit tenant lease (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)

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:59, 31 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creative financing[edit]

Creative financing (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)

Only one reference, which doesn't really support the contents of what is essentially a personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With one mouse click, I found seven books about creative financing. We should not delete poorly referenced articles about obviously notable topics. Instead, we should improve them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure the topic deserves an article, butI dont think this is it. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is simple, then, Rathfelder. Edit the article to improve it instead of trying to delete it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the topic. I'm just a humble categoriser. Surprised at how many articles about real estate are unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There are several reasons to keep the article. First, there is a lot of interest in the topic as User: Cullen has noted via his book search. Second, the interest in creative financing is definitely going to grow in the developed world. Why? They have aging populations who are on a tight budget so that means there is going to be a lot of properties that need to be rehabbed because the elderly people couldn't take care of the properties they would have liked to. So hard money lenders offering rehab loans are only going to increase. Second, post 2007/2008 financial crisis, the banks have tightened up their lending standards so hard money lenders are increasing because they are tapping a market. There is even an American Association of Private Lenders now. Third, people can make decent return by keeping their bank anymore and many find the stock market too risky. So people with money to invest are lending money to their relatives/friends for investment properties.Knox490 (talk) 05:15, 1 September 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 Late Registration. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mama (Kanye West song)[edit]

Hey Mama (Kanye West song) (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)

It does not meet WP:NSONG. The content can be incorporated into Late Registration article or this page deleted with no merging as the content seems trivial. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → the only mention of the song was because of a viral dispute with Taylor Swift and regarding his mother dead. Nevertheless, those two articles can be included on the main page.

2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article about the pertinent album would be the best solution.01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)TH1980 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amy Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Brown_(2nd_nomination) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. The two books are self-published. Previous nomination indicated some popularity, but not Wikipedia-compatible notability. Perma-stub article. A decade later, reliable sources demonstrating notability have yet to appear. External links are all dead sites (re-hosted at an archive.) New searches don't produce substantial, independent references that demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:ARTIST fail, and also a GNG fail. I found this article, but not much else. The old AFD, in the early days of Wikipedia, did not really present any policy-based arguments for keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject of this article is a non-notable artist who does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing close to showing notability. Being self-published clearly is against that. Clearly not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable artist, without reliable sources, fails WP:GNG.Ms.bletvok (talk) 21:24, 3 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Rossant[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Rossant (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 for individual notability as distinct from the company. Almost all refs are from his own site. The 2 NYT articles are 1, a wedding announcement, and b, about a house he bought. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BASIC, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - subject of the article is not the subject of the sources cited - a wedding announcement and a story about buying a house don't count towards significant coverage - Epinoia (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with a sound test[edit]

List of video games with a sound test (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)

Intriguing, but ultimately completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. It wouldn't be defining enough for a category and the list is mostly original research. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Additionally, the article is about 99% unsourced, and would probably be very difficult to find sources for, as it’s not really the type of thing that would generally be covered. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE stuff, and most games have sound tests. TarkusABtalk/contrib 13:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't even see how that's a defining feature for a cat. "Sound test" is a reasonable term to be searched on to have info about with a few sourcable examples, at best. --Masem (t) 14:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No more notable than a List of video games without a sound test would be.----Pontificalibus 15:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have been watching this since its inception to see whether RSs would appear indicating that this might be a notable topic. I flagged up concerns about notability on the day it was created and I have seen no evidence of improvement in this regard since then. It clearly isn't notable.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Gamecruft. Completely indiscriminate information. Ajf773 (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting list, but contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and near-impossible to WP:V with WP:RS, which makes it non-notable. I doubt any of the target articles actually discuss this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, very esoteric list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 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 Disambiguate. I believe Slatersteven has it correct here, and it is a reasonable search term. I'll do the necessary moving around of articles. Note: Capitalisation fixed to School ghost stories. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School ghost Stories[edit]

School ghost Stories (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)

Looks a tad OR, especially as school ghost stories are hardly unique to Japan. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are several of these in American culture as well, as well as that ghost girl from Hogwarts (I'm blanking on her name atm). Also, the examples given appear to be original research. In the absence of deletion at least massive improvements are needed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As well as number of articles on the same subject (films and TV series Gakkō no Kaidan, as well as a plethora of fictional school ghost stories, A School Story for example).Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:John M Wolfson, her name is Moaning Myrtle. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 16:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squeeps10, thanks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kaidan as a subsection of Japanese ghost stories Gakkō no Kaidan , since the editor obviously intended an article focusing on Japanese school ghost stories, rather than a more global article. The sources are WorldCat library book listings, so there is no way to judge the notability of these stories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The creator seems to be using their User page as a sandbox for the article [4], so there are some other issues at work here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect might not be useful, say I want to do a search for the film school Ghost stories, I would get redirected to Kaidan. At best this should be a disambig.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: Gakkō no Kaidan. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as this is the English wiki the redirect should be what an English speaker might search for. There is no reason for this phrase to redirect to Kaidan over a redirect to the actual phrase (in Japanese).Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is simple, then. I leave it to you to articulate. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


OK It may be this needs re-purposing as a redirect to Gakkō no Kaidan.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirect "IF" that is what LuckyLouie means by "The solution is simple, then. I leave it to you to articulate.". I was leaning "Delete" (still a secondary option) but maybe someone would ping me as an interested party if the others mentioned are examined. Otr500 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a line and two academic references to the disambig page at Gakkō no Kaidan. If someone wants to heavily edit and rebuild the article being considered for deletion using these sources (rather than the vague and unfathomable Japanese books cited) they should do so. Otherwise I'm fine with School ghost Stories being a redirect to the disambig page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit concerned (given the universal nature of school ghost stories (OR ALERT not sure I have ever been to a school that did not have one) that linking to a specific nations version of them may not give the searcher what they want.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, the OP had a Japan-centric view of what was a good article title for English WP. Change to delete or redirect to “Japanese school ghost stories”, or similar. -LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to annoy you all, but the more I think about this the more I think "this is going to be a search term that will be used", thus I think this may need to be a disamb with link s to Gakkō no Kaidan, A School Story, School Spirit and whatever else a user may actually be looking for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be accomplished simply by making School ghost Stories #REDIRECT to Gakkō no Kaidan. That way either search term gets you to the same disambig page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but as I said it is also reasonable for someone to search for school ghost stories and not be looking for Gakkō no Kaidan (as I have implied I assumed this was about the M R James story when I checked out the article).Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable secondary sourcing that discusses school ghost stories from all over the world as a genre, feel free to create List of ghost stories about schools. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is about what people might look for, not an article. Also I am always dubious of "but it must be the exact phrase" for article titles. We have [[6]], [[7]], this (of course) excludes any book that is not JUST about school ghost stories.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. An editor Googling for stories about school ghosts to add to an article sounds like WP:OR to me ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its an example of what people might search for. This is not some concept unique to Japan or anime. I cannot support anything other then delete or make this page a disambig about all articles a user might be searching for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I believe in the supernatural, I don't believe in ghosts. But there is no doubt that interest in "ghosts" is increasing so interest in this topic is only going to grow. The Telegraph reported in 2013: "More than half of those taking part (52 per cent) said they believed in the supernatural, a marked increase on the two previous comparable studies, in 2009 and 2005, which both found a level of around 40 per cent. The survey also found that one in five claimed to have had some sort of paranormal experience. Interest in the supernatural has become big business in recent years, with the popularity of television shows like Most Haunted, which starred Yvette Fielding, and the spread of so-called “ghost walks” around supposedly haunted parts of city centres."[8] Even many of the irreligious are believers in the paranormal. The Wall Street Journal reported: "In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely."[9].Knox490 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. Policy based reasons why the present article meets our sourcing and notability standards would help. Speculating about future interest does not make a strong case. -LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tapping Solution[edit]

The Tapping Solution (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)

Spam article created by WP:SPA and edited by self-admitted COI editor. Sources are press releases. Content is exclusively promotional and uncritical of the debunked Emotional Freedom Techniques (see WP:LUNATIC). Guy (Help!) 10:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Author is intent on promoting "Tapping" and has/had a draft at Draft:EFT Tapping. Although a book article does not need to comply with WP:MEDRS it nevertheless has nothing to satisfy notability. All snake oil and quackery. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   11:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AgileBio[edit]

AgileBio (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 an advert created by an apparent COI editor and tagged as such from the outset. It is almost exclusively based on press releases and the company's own or affiliated websites. Google shows little else - press releases covering updates and that's about it. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sources in the article are indeed mostly primary. One that isn't, by Chuffart and Yvert, actually only mentions LabCollector (AgileBio's main product) in one brief sentence, so it hardly supports the salesy sentence it is attached to. Several of the trade paper refs seem to be based on PR notices as nom remarks. My main concern before deletion is that there is some notability of the product and company, with for instance a review experiment of the product, so it's plainly at least being considered seriously (as Chuffert and Yvert also indicate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The bulk of this article is about LabCollector and its language is not encyclopedic. I do not object to using primary sources to speak about features of a piece of software. The problem, however, is that, frame contents aside, there is nothing else in the article. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRaster[edit]

OpenRaster (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, basically dead file format that fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sustained coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Bhandari[edit]

Chandra Bhandari (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 satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage for his political career or incidents. Fails WP:GNG too. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Passes WP:NPOL Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, serving in a national legislature is not a secondary criterion for NPOL; it's an automatic pass of NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flag for reference improvement. Serving in a national legislature is a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. Yes, some improved sourcing is needed, but national legislators are one of the classes of topic that Wikipedia has decided are critically important enough for us to have articles about that so long as we can verify that they actually held the claimed role and aren't a hoax, they keep articles regardless of the state of sourcing present in it. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common-interest development[edit]

Common-interest development (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)

Personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many books have been written about CIDs. The topic is notable, and therefore the article should be kept and improved rather than being deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand. CIDs are not only notable as User: Cullen pointed out via the number of books written on the topic, but they will grow in important. Why? Because the developed world is facing an aging populations where many seniors struggle keeping up a home so condos make perfect sense. In addition, loneliness is a very big issue in the developed world especially among seniors. And lonely people not only suffer from mental health problems, but it has an impact on their physical health too. So senior communities which give people a greater sense of community make a lot of sense and their is definitely going to be a big growth in them. To give you an idea how big of a problem this is already consider what The Guardian reported in 2015: "The number of men over the age of 50 suffering from severe loneliness in England will increase to more than 1 million in the next 15 years, research based on government statistics has revealed. More than 700,000 older men already report feeling a high degree of loneliness and with the population of older men living alone predicted to swell by 65% to 1.5 million by 2030... This matters because loneliness is actually a health risk,” said Janet Morrison, chief executive of Independent Age. “If you allow people to suffer from loneliness it has the equivalent impact as smoking 15 cigarettes a day and is as big a risk as obesity.”".[10]Knox490 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, a valid legal term. They don't really exist in many states/countries, but they are known in some large jurisdictions such as California. See Google books. See also WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 3 September 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 Buyer brokerage. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer agency agreement[edit]

Buyer agency agreement (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)

Largely unreferenced personal essay. Could possibly merge with Buyer brokerage which is a similar topic.Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Bulldog Registry[edit]

American Bulldog Registry (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 GNG as a standalone article, no citations to independent RS to establish notability, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection - redirect to American Bulldog Association. Atsme Talk 📧 08:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 08:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 08:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with User:Atsme--Pierpao (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as argued. It appears to be a "front" for selling puppies. (In my opinion, its travelling companion the American Bulldog Association - that was created by the same no-longer-active editor - should go down the same path.) William Harristalk 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. A two-line travesty that is pretending to be an article. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is that of a company or organisation which apparently doesn't exist. The content is a list of two such companies of which at least one appears to fail WP:NCORP and should become a redirect – as already noted by William Harris. If the two companies were notable, the function of this page would be better performed by reciprocal See-also links. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Gareth Griffith-Jones sums up my thoughts exactly. Cavalryman (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious WP:NOT#DIRECTORY policy violation. Its own intro says why this is not a valid article approach: "The American Bulldog is registered by many organisations" – the same is true of other breeds, so for every breed we'd have a bogus list article like this, mostly with identical content (i.e., the major breed registries/kennel clubs). It just serves no encyclopedia purpose, any more than would a "List of department stores that carry Vans shoes". Also, my ability to assume an innocent attempt to create a legit encyclopedia article is stretched to the breaking point, because pretty much all community and administrative drama to arise within the scope of WP:DOGS in about the last year has related directly to promotion of non-notable alleged new breeds and sub-breeds of bulldog (see ongoing AfD of "Olde Boston Bulldogge" and several previous ones), and attempts to suppress or malign well-established breeds (esp. the Pit Bull; see recent ANI about that "NoMoPBs" activist). I can't read minds, but this article appears to exist solely to drive puppy purchases and pedigree registrations.(WP:NOT#PROMO, WP:SPAM). PS: There are also some reparable faults, like the title (should be "List of American Bulldog registries"), and style gaffes, like using British English in an American topic.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 17:37, 7 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Wireless Solutions[edit]

Global Wireless Solutions (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 advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Scwiki3 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. While there is coverage in various reliable publications, some are mentioned-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and others rely entirely on information provided by the company or a connected person and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:17, 2 September 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) 18:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dot Capital[edit]

Green Dot Capital (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)

unable to find news of note to establish notability. I think it fails WP:GNG. robertsky (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. robertsky (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. robertsky (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only citation in this article is PR Newswire, which is known for manufacturing press releases. Eliko007 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not arguing against deletion but in reference to what @Eliko007: said about PR Newswire - they don’t ‘manufacture’ press releases, they aggregate them. They’re not a reliable source but they’re not a fraud. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 7 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Larouci[edit]

Yasser Larouci (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)

It is a bt difficult to judge for me, but I think the subject has never player in a fully professional league yet (though it could happen any moment), thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I looked for the general coverage, and I only see one article in Metro about Liverpool signing him, which is not enough (and covers just one event). Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:52, 2 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. Dotiwala[edit]

S. Dotiwala (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)

Another cricketer who fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, are not sufficient to establish notability. Dee03 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

SK Bahry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
V. J. Barai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. D. Khote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Kothane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. K. Ganguli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NPR Vittal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CN Haksar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
T. S. Nahapiet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
M. Asthana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C. Sandanayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Gunatillake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Manuratne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
L. Dinaparna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I. Kudigame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee03 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it will be interesting to find out when (if) the missing information comes to light, whether it will come to light individually, all at the same time, or team by team. Of course if it comes through individually, we can send each player to DRV one by one. I note that it took nine years for Christopher Theakstone's name and birthdate to come through. Bobo. 07:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:SIGCOV is found for any of these players, you may recreate that article. We need more than the player's full name and DoB (if that's what you mean by "missing information") to satisfy GNG. Dee03 08:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misinterpret my words again please. It's not funny. If reliable sources are found to verify the information, this information will be easily citable. Bobo. 08:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I misinterpreted there. Can you clarify what "missing information" you are referring to? Dee03 08:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other information you would consider to be anything other than superfluous to the article other than the cricketer's biographical details. What other information are you expecting - the cricketer's shoe size? Bobo. 08:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before in at least one other AfD, I am not expecting any extra information to be present in the article. The only requirement is meeting GNG. Dee03 09:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which will be clearly covered if alternative reliable verifiable secondary sources are found. Bobo. 09:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, provided it discusses the player in detail per SIGCOV. Dee03 09:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally you understand. Well done. Bobo. 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I made you understand. Well done to me. Dee03 09:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue and you know it. The issue is that we're questioning, after 14 years or more, CA and/or CI, as sole reliable sources. The fact that it took 14 years for anyone to bat an eyelid... Bobo. 09:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CI and CA profiles are database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion according to SPORTBASIC. I don't see how that 14-year argument is relevant to any of this. "We've been doing something wrong for 14 years, let's continue to do it for another 14" is silly. Dee03 09:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated above, it has taken 14 years for these issues to be questioned. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying that is what has happened. Bobo. 09:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was many, many years until these guidelines you're referring to existed. SPORTBASIC as a shortcut has only existed for 2.5 years... Bobo. 09:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are not biographies. Per WP:WHYN "we require significant coverage in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph". I am not against a merge/redirect if appropriate targets can be identified.----Pontificalibus 09:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these cricketers played for teams much more established than Gwalior. If we're questioning whether a team such as Gwalior needs an article for List of Gwalior cricketers, I would make the argument that it makes sense to make lists of players for more established teams. Bobo. 09:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect where sensible, otherwise delete. The lack biographical details and the limited cricketing history that we know about these blokes suggests that we're not going to be able to find the sorts of reliable, in depth sources we need to have to be able to write a sensible biography beyond a simple statistical analysis of their performance. If such sources are eventually forthcoming then the articles can be re-created with little bother: as it stands I think that's very unlikely to happen but it is certainly possible.
In terms of articles to redirect:
There don't appear to any lists for the Sri Lankans. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly create/expand those lists, but as I've said, I'm frustrated enough already by this entire business... The initial creation of these lists only seems to exist in order to get a list of bluelinks... Perhaps one day if there were comprehensive lists of Sri Lankan cricketers in mainspace, these could be redirected appropriately too. Like I say, I'm too frustrated to do it myself. Bobo. 16:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Gwalior and Holkar players are merged into the Madhya Pradesh list, it would make sense to merge Southern Punjab ones into Punjab as well, maybe by creating separate sections for players of Southern Punjab, Northern Punjab, Eastern Punjab and Patiala in List of Punjab cricketers (India). Dee03 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Punjab would presumably include this game, which obviously, being 33 years before, had a completely different XI, and one Test cricketer. I wonder if it would be any use to go through pre-1947 match lists in India and finding first-class cricketers like Peter Perera from what I will refer to as "named" teams (just a random example), whose inclusion on WP will probably be met by much crying by the modern-day exclusionists who are offended by our project's inclusion criteria. I can only guess how many of these cricketers will be deleted based on flimsy POV criteria... Bobo. 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A somewhat lazy search turns up 134 players for Southern Punjab, at least 30 of whom have no documented birthdate. Just an indication of the length to which this list could be expanded. Bobo. 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- another series of obscure one-match cricketers, purportedly biographies but actually match scorecards. In most cases we can't even determine the person's full name. Reyk YO! 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Having been recentlyu going through the articles in Category:1834 births, I keep finding it odd we have articles on cricketeers who seem to have played just one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 3 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Albers[edit]

Chantelle Albers (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 yet notable per WP:NACTOR, with only minor roles in significant productions. I can find no significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:26, 31 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Beckett[edit]

Bernard Beckett (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 independent reliable sources. Noahe123 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several national level awards were already listed in the article at the time of the AfD nomination, indicating notability of the subject. I added some refs, and a mention of an international award, Prix Sorcières. More than enough here to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable international award and books reviewed as widely (for a non-US author) as the Wall Street Journal add up to WP:AUTHOR notability to me. The day job as a schoolteacher is largely irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 31 August 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 to delete (or merge). The default is that the article is kept. A possible solution would be to move up to an intermediate supertopic along the lines of Locations in Halo, and build out other relevant content around it. bd2412 T 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Gulch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blood Gulch (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 WP:GAMECRUFT. The lede also makes several claims, some of which are puffery, that are not supported in the text. Worth noting this was created against WP:VG consensus; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_137#The_Silent_Cartographer. JOEBRO64 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as it pains me to say it, Delete. If anybody here is active at the Halo wiki, I'd suggest moving much of the article's contents over there. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 19:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom makes a gamecruft claim while presenting absolutely no evidence of such. Purely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. As the creator of the article, I checked to see if it passed WP:GNG before creating it, and there are other articles with similar precedent such as Dust II, which has similar significance in Counter Strike as Blood Gulch does in Halo. There is much actual gamecruft in need of cleanup, though.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's pure WP:IDHT. There was crystal clear consensus at WT:VG that you shouldn't create these articles because they consist of (1) a lede that contains puffery claims not supported by the text, (2) a basic gamecruft description of the stage that is of no interest to anyone besides diehard Halo fans, and (3) a weak reception section that simply consists of every trivial mention. There's also absolutely no indication in the article that Blood Gulch had the same impact as Dust II, which actually has meaningful commentary that demonstrates its significance. JOEBRO64 14:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivial mention" seems to be a personal opinion on your part. The cited sources are fully discussing the map and they have the map's name in the title of their article. They are not trivial in the slightest. Furthermore, Dust II's reception section is the same size, if you exclude the "Impact and legacy" section that is mostly discussing its ingame changes over the years.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also not really sure what you mean by "meaningful commentary" in the Dust II article as opposed to the commentary in Blood Gulch. Can you give an example of what exactly that would entail? I think there is plenty in the latter that demonstrates that it's one of the series's most famous maps.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - per nom - completely unnecessary spinout made against consensus. It lacks independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to series article as a recurring element or delete. Doesn't need more than two sentences based on the current sourcing, which is not substantive. Joebro's assessment of the gamecruft is spot on. czar 02:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Seems to meet WP:GNG but if this is being removed for WP:GAMECRUFT then Dust II should be. Could be merged to a respective Halo game. Spy-cicle (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between this article and Dust II is that Dust II actually has sources that demonstrate its nobility; these just boil down to "this is the best Halo level" without any meaningful commentary. JOEBRO64 00:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about everything in Blood Gulch#References? Seems like you are selectively ignoring that. It doesn't matter how relatively famous something is; a mention is notability, period.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • a mention is notability, period—what? That is not how notability works. Notability is actual, detailed coverage of the subject, not every minuscule mention. I have looked at the references, and they all repeat the same bland opinions and don't support the puffery assertions made in the lede. JOEBRO64 01:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The gamesradar piece is an entire article worth of commentary about the map. The Good Game piece is several paragraphs. Not all of them are massive mentions, but there is enough to say that it's notable. Per WP:BONSAI, an article doesn't need to be massive to be suitable for inclusion, though the article is already a fair bit larger than a stub.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ehhh I gotta side with Joebro here. The sourcing here is pretty weak. Those Good Game “paragraphs” are extremely short and say little of substance. Same with some of the others, like the Engadget one. And with only six sources present in total, and so many brief mentions, a separate article is just not warranted. It’s better represented as part of its respective game(s). Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. 172.56.28.46 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTPAPER a notable subject with enough sourcing. Wm335td (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on Earth does NOTPAPER apply here? See Serge's comment above. JOEBRO64 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64:. Meaning we have no limit to the articles we can keep. We should explore WP:ATD. Editors can disagree as they do in the above thread. You cite Serge because Serge agrees with your nomination (you and Serge were adamant in the discussion). I have difficulty finding consensus in that discussion. Wm335td (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "hav[ing] no limit to the articles we can keep" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact this article does not meet WP:N. Secondly, I have no idea how you can't see consensus in the discussion. There was clearly a large majority of users who disagreed with Zxcvbnm's VG location articles like this existing because their sourcing is extremely weak; this is by no means an exception. JOEBRO64 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the consensus you claim theJoebro64. However the real consensus you need is here at AfD. I think this is a Keep per WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wm335td: Can you explain why this article is notable based on the information currently present?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't WP:GAMECRUFT, as it is not simply of interest to fans of Halo, but also to fans of Red vs. Blue, given that the first 5 seasons mostly occur in Blood Gulch. Jeb3Talk at me here 21:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. What's in the article is basically all there ever likely could be for the subject. The two sources for satisfying GNG are the Edge article and Australian Broadcasting Corp feature; the others are minor mentions. As such I think there's a reasonable argument it can barely scrape by GNG, but we're left with an article that really as Czar mentions, merits at most one or two lines in another article. There's no indication of enduring importance, and there's definitely less here than Dust II (which I don't really think successfully argues its case as a separate article either.) I've never come across significant development info that could beef this up, for example, that wouldn't be better served in a larger topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The reception section is lacking, and i dont even think its usable.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but it is grounds for merger. czar 05:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it would be WP:UNDUE unless it was reduced to a single sentence, which is an effective delete, not really a merge in the true sense of the term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on my reasoning in my essay on appropriate coverage. As David Fuchs pointed out, we probably do scrape by GNG here, but if we're trying to write quality articles to be any use to readers, we need quality sourcing, especially of the notability-conferring kind. Red Phoenix talk 11:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no part of WP:GAMECRUFT that forbids prominent game locations. Furthermore, the article meets WP:GNG, and its relevant to not only Halo, but also Red vs. Blue. While the article could certainly be cleaned up, it does have notability. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's already plenty of RSes on the page that are specifically about this one level. See also World 1-1, Green Hill Zone etc. WP:GAMECRUFT does not forbid articles about specific video game levels, and the "puffery" that the nominator mentions can simply be removed without deleting the whole article. Phediuk (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly merge, with keep preferred over effective deletion. By "friendly" I mean "all of the existing content should be kept as passing WP:GNG", rather than merges that are really "stick in a single sentence into the target article." I don't know if the Halo series article is the right target since having a "notable levels" section seems jarring there, but if some other target could be found ("Multiplayer Halo?"), then making it a section of a larger article would be fine. That said, if the franchise article doesn't want this and no other target can be found, keep would be better than deletion, as this material passes GNG; just possible it'd be better as a section rather than a stand-alone article. SnowFire (talk) 14:00, 6 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Delord[edit]

Christophe Delord (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)

Declined an A7 speedy because there's a good faith claim of importance in the number of films made. Good faith google search turning up lots of social networking and wiki-type listings. Gnews turning up results for a rugby player of the same name, but not this one. Previous prod was contested, so here we are. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources, there are no reliable sources present in his French and Russian wikipedia articles respectively and I'm not seeing any substantiated claim to pass WP:NCREATIVE thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC✉ 19:49, 1 September 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. WP:SNOW keep, WP:BEFORE was improperly performed. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Mountain[edit]

Under the Mountain (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 independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NBOOK. Noahe123 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@Noahe123:} this book definitely meets NBOOK criteria 3 "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." given Under the Mountain (film). So your nomination is not quite correct - do you have reason to believe therefore it remains non-notable? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)as b[reply]
  • Keep as the nom has been active and hasn't answered my question about the adaptation. Plus all the sourcing and reasons laid out by Coolabahapple above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems this book is notable. Needs more reliable sources. Noahe123 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 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. Definitely not the most notable gorilla, but consensus finds him to be notable enough. Certainly far more so than the average gorilla. bd2412 T 03:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max (gorilla)[edit]

Max (gorilla) (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)

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Non-notable animal. Same basic principle as WP:BLP1E, except this gorilla didn't even bring it on himself." The sources here are talking about a non-notable incident, and having been a passive part of a non-notable incident is not notable. (Note; I meant WP:BIO1E, but you get the idea I'm sure, comment at 22:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event had no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, a single tragic incident involving a non-notable gorilla. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just a single event, but also a statue and (considerably after the event) the gorilla's death. Reliable sources thought that this was a notable gorilla. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I side with Eastmain on this one. Max is certainly notable enough IMO, though he is not the most notable gorilla by far. -- BoothSift 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of places have statues for various things. That does not make their subjects notable. And how is dying 7 years after a news item at all notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: The article is not titled "Death of Max (gorilla)", is it?-- BoothSift 20:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't, because his death had no lasting notability; he just died, so that doesn't prove notability. After living, and being passively involved in a non-notable incident, he died an unremarkable death. At least that's my argument. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is quite notable as there are plenty of sources which pass WP:BASIC. BLP1E/BIO1E is not a reason to delete because those guidelines are concerned with the split between coverage of the individual and the event. As there doesn't seem to be a separate article about an event, that's a non-issue. Claims that there was no lasting impact are false because the subject won a prize as "Newsmaker of the Year"; their death was subject of a further round of coverage and they were commemorated with a substantial statue. Even now, there is fresh coverage in books like this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He got shot one year, then when he died they remembered it in what are basically obituaries. Hardly lasting coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Obituaries are good evidence of notability; I regularly start articles about notable people using them. And the subject here didn't just get obituaries. It was eulogized as "The Second Best Known South African in the World". It got a memorial garden for mourners. It got a website. It got a statue and that's still there. The sources which tell us this were written years after the subject died. That's lasting coverage; that's notability. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson's excellent rationale. I'd also like to echo the same sentiments as Andrew w/r/t BLP1E. That is a frequently misunderstood policy, especially in the context of AFDs. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, a eulogy. My grandmother received a eulogy, and has things named after her. But she's sure not notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT - known for one incident, otherwise unremarkable - Epinoia (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article for Eno the Emu, known for one event, was recently deleted for lack of notability - famous does not equal notable - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 7 September 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. bd2412 T 03:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Auld Dubrach[edit]

Auld Dubrach (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)

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Almost completely unsourced for 5 years, the one source has no indication of meeting RS, and no meaningful biographical information anywhere. WP:NOPAGE." None of the sources I found give any remotely plausible details about his life whatsoever, and the ridiculous age claim doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I declined the PROD because I think there are sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. First, having your portrait hang in the National Portrait Gallery of a country is prima facie evidence of notability. The painting, its subject and their significance are the topic of articles about the development of modern Scottish identity hereand here
The life and activities of Peter Grant/Auld Dubrach are discussed in the following books:
Auld Dubrach is also the subject of this BBC broadcast.
I agree with the nominator that the details of his life are doubtful and his great age possibly spurious, but those considerations are not important in terms of his notability, which arises precisely from his being a highly mythologised figure. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he was a faker, he was a notable one and still written about to this day. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The content seems to be rather similar to the text with the portrait on the National Galleries Scotland website, but I doubt they want to claim this as a copy-vio. I note that give his forename as Patrick, not Peter. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of the problem. The sources aren't even consistent on basic details such as this, which creates a bit of a problem for a factual encyclopedia. Since the sources are fairly thin even before this, I don't see how it's possible to have anything informative. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Scotland, Pàdraig may be rendered in English as Peter or Patrick, though generally the former. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG, thanks to Mccapra for finding above sources and improving the article (i note that another editor has also added more there). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sources, and still 4 sentences. I'm not sure how there'll be more than that in an article about this guy, given that there's not much depth of coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:23, 3 September 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_August_31&oldid=1142224476"