Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A New Day Records[edit]

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

A search for sources failed to turn up independent, in-depth, reliable coverage. There is no indication the label has had any impact on music genre or culture. The best quality source I found was [1]. I currently think this should be redirected to Dave Rees. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination requests a redirect, but this subject is not mentioned in the proposed target article, so relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Not a likely search term either so I don't see the point in a redirect to Dave Rees article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vanags[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. All claimed impacts are at their particular University, not the field in general. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost everybody is important to their college, except middle management. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely unsourced, reads more like an obituary or personal reflection than an encyclopedia article. Although there is sourcing for the subject, it appears to be entirely local and mostly through his employer, so not independent enough for WP:GNG notability. And although he was an academic, his work appears to have been mainly building things rather than scholarly publication, so WP:PROF isn't appropriate and isn't met. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden B. Siegel[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable musician, one published paper isn't notable for an academic, not generally notable. I don't find any reliable independent sources covering this individual. Schazjmd (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That paper's publisher, IJSRP, appears on a list of open-access predatory journals. See WP article on Predatory publishing. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably an autobiography, with no sign of notability – doesn't meet any of the applicable criteria. I am unable to find any secondary sources talking about him. May become notable in the future, but not just yet. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage about the subject himself. The references are two Imgur social media cites, a Texas law that allegedly violated his rights, a local paper, and a paper he wrote. There's so much personal information in it as to make me wonder that the subject or someone connected to him wrote this page. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has been converging towards agreeing that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Prakash Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating two other individual,s considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award in India, a country of over 1.35 billion people, and the total number of awardees is only 2840 people in its history of 65 years. The subject of the article is also famous as an institution builder which is mentioned in the article. The generally agreed norm is that if a subject satisfies one of the several criteria of notability, we keep the article in. Here, the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO and applying another criterion is not called for. If we move along these lines, Wikipedia will become leaner by the day. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a lawyer but if we apply WP:PROF on him, the article Mahatma Gandhi will not be there. Further, WP:PROF advises This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable. Padma Shri award is prestigious and given to notable people only.Krishna's flute (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any evidence for "institution builder" Contributing to the establishment of a single academic department is not institution building, as contrasted to being the principal person who founds a university . The question here is if Padma Shri is enough, and the fact that it is given for such little accomplishments as given here is eveidence to the contrary. The fact that it is awarded with the ref saying its for hispublications, when his publicationsare trivial shows the quality of the award cannot be assumed. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was instrumental in creating the department of gastroenterology at Patna Medical College and at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Padma Shri was not awarded to him for his scientific publications but for his contributions, in general, in the field of Medicine in India. The argument, as you put it, is straightforward - whether Padma Shri is a notable award. The fourth highest civilian award of a country of 1.35 billion people, I guess, is notable. A point to note here is that the the recipients of the higher three awards, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna, together count only 1609 since 1954.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:~~Delete~~: (see end of paragraph): Article as currently stands and I'm not sure it can go much farther. I'm leaning delete because the article does not seem to evidence the notability of the subject to me at his point. I'm not at all brilliant on guidelines but I've tried. At WP:ANYBIO. The header above it says (my emphasis) "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". I'm try to compare with UK MBE/OBE/CBE/Knighthoods ... and in general my gut feeling an MBE would not get an article unless meeting in on other criteria (probably true for OBE and CBE also) whereas a Knighthood might. And I'm inclined to think also this likely ought to be the case for the fourth level Civilian award in India; albeit the population/award ratio is likely lower. In summary the article needs to strongly evidence why it is there and give context and possibly meet criteria on another basis. The article as to demonstrate this is in a meaningful way ... not just a like of date events and awards. If the person has written articles we need a Bibliography. Sourced must be protected again WP:LINKROT so they can be re-checked. There are glimspses the subject might be notable, but the article fails to impress that to me. And I am inclined to think the situation is similar for many on List of Padma Shri award recipients (2000–2009), perhaps my random selection of Jagan Nath Kaul (excluding the awards list and the nightmarish lack of inline citations) at least at first glance if not at second) is more the minimum sort of article we ought to be trying to achieve in my view. Despite the way I may discuss these articles let it not detract from the honour of these people and I hope I have not inadvertently caused offence. Personal nobility does not correlate with Wikipedia notability. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I've switched to Draftify as there a possibilities an article may be possible but I dont believe the current sources as presented warrant it and perhaps equally I'm not seeing enough content in the article itself. Take away the awards and there's nothing left in the article. I'm concerned about stubs being presented leaving it for others to fix. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change Djm-leighpark. An article can remain a stub or start class. Being a stub is not a reason to delete. It will eventually expand. Draftify should be selected if there are volunteers willing to work on it or else it will get deleted in 6 months any way. Our focus here on AfD should be to gauge to notability and comment on the basis of it. If it is notable, there is no reason why it cannot remain as a stub or start until it can be expanded. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets the WP:GNG atleast he is the awardee of a country's 4th highest award. It cannot be neglected.Rocky 734 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@DGG: If these are test cases not individuals do they need to reported to e.g. WikiProject India? Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: @Rocky 734/Tachs-jojo@nthony/Anybody: Per WP:THREE please specifically present 3 best WP:RS sources for scrutiny. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fourth level Padma award, especially for Indians, does not mean a thing. It can be given for all sorts of political connections. Other than an incidental mention in an article about someone else, which is hardly an example of a reliable source, let alone a scholarly source that would be par for the course for an academic, there is nothing by way of the usual criteria by which WP accords notability. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let us leave out politics, political connections can earn one laurels in many countries, let alone India. The opening statement also appears to be far-fetched. Being an Indian I can safely argue that Padma awards are considered in high esteem in India.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What my reasoning means is that other than a mention of the Padma award, which is neither here nor there, there are no Wikipedia reliable sources supporting his notability. Are you proposing that we obtain a list of all the fourth-level Padma awardees since 1954 and create Wikpedia articles on each of them? That would be the unmistakable, the unerring, inference of your safe argument. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Padma Shri being a notable award, my conviction is that all the 2840 recipients of the award are notable per WP:ANYBIO. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not adequate. Citation record seems non-existent. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

If sources are inadequate, we must develop the article. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia allows stubs.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and find new sources then. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It will come eventually, if the article does not get deleted before that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below on the sourcing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. He is a figure of authority in the Indian state of Bihar for Gastroenterology he being the Head of Department of Gastroenterology at PMCH, Bihar's biggest publicly owned college and hospital. He is also a member of the executive council of the Medical Council of India, which is a very important post held by top level doctors. I understand that the sourcing is hard to find, which is mainly attributed to WP:BIAS. The regional language is Hindi and print and TV media are more prominent in this part of the world in comparison to internet. The Times of India published an interview of the subject on the topic of Hepatitis and here--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: President' Medical Council of India would be a reason for an article but not just member. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about other articles When I checked our category of those who had received the awards, at least 1/3 were unambiguously notable. So either we are getting all the notable ones, or the entire list does have to be checked to see if there are notable ones we have not covered. I would strongly support (and am willing to work on revising) articles on every one of them who do meet the usual standards. I have always advocated intensive work on all areas that are under-covered here to find the notable people. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sourcing I don't think the unavailability of sources for the modern period is actually a problem--the articles do document what the people have done. Where it would be a real problem is for the British period. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, my parents are from this region of India. India is a third world country and Bihar can be considered as the most economically backward region of India. This should help you have some idea of the Internet Bias in the region. It is not that the subject isn't getting covered, the coverage primarily lies in the offline media. And even then we have some coverage that I listed above. My keep vote is based mainly on the notability due to his work that got him the Padma shree in the first place and then the assumption that the conferment of the award must have led to more coverage that would again be found in the offline media. Using same standard to gauge the SIGCOV sources for a doctor in the US vs the subject from this backward region will be insane. You've got to trust the contributors from the region in such cases that are hard to judge. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite all the protestations and special pleading we still don't have enough in-depth independent reliable sources about the subject to pass WP:GNG or other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would specifically like to know whether any editors think that moving this article to draft would enable the introduction of additional sources or bases for notability. BD2412 T 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 20:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can move the article to draft yourself by copying its source into your sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe, Unbelievable: you are are on the verge of inciting people to perform copies without attribution, and I'd encourage people become aware of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia before going down that route. I'll hold my breath and remain WP:CIVIL.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant WP:Wikilawyering. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe:, I am asking in the context of potentially closing this discussion administratively. BD2412 T 22:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been examining sources for 10 minutes, the existing sources haven't been well utilitised. Between the line our subject may have done some public Hepatitus campaigns and ther is talk of his published perr review'ed research. I haven't specificly found that on a search so far and there's other with the same name to cloud the searching. One of my concerns is copyvio's and reverse copyvio's and the interjection by Xxanthippe above means I'd likely ask for a refund if the community decides to delete this. Should the community determine a Padma Shri is insufficient in itself for article retention in mainspace I would agree it is in itself sufficient for any minimally reasonable request to restore to draft ... (avoids copyvio, reverse copyvio, attribution and WP:CFORK issues. there is a lot of digitally scanned content coming online at the moment so new sources are continuing to arise. OK if it get forgot after 6 months .... then so be it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In continuation of my Keep vote above, just as I had guessed about SIGCOV sources being available in Hindi, here is one from Outlook (Indian magazine) Where the subject's biography, personal life, education, career, publication etc is covered in great detail in Hindi article, which should be sufficient to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV.^[1] This also proves that more such sources can be dug up from offline sources. Apart from Padma Shree the subject has also received "Icons of Bihar" award by Outlook in 2018.^[2] being an authority figure he is the goto man for major Indian newspapers for the Gastro related topics.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] He is also one of the 6 member of the executive council of the Medical Council of India, which is a very important post held by top level doctors in India.^[7] To answer User:BD2412, yes, it will be helpful, but so far what has been dug out, IMHO is enough for a keep. Fyi ping Djm-leighpark for a review. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "पद्मश्री डॉ. विजय प्रकाश सिंह". outlookhindi.com. No. PadmaShree Dr Vijay Prakash Singh. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Outlook Icons of Bihar : Outlook Hindi". https://www.outlookhindi.com/. Retrieved 4 December 2019. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
^ Bhatia, Banjot Kaur (9 August 2014). "17 lakh Hepatitis C patients in Bihar | Patna News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. Retrieved 29 November 2019.
^ "City round-up". telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Dr. Vijay Prakash". BInvolved. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Dr Vijay Prakash". NASH24x7. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Medical Council of India". Medical Council of India. 2015. Archived from the original on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

@DBigXray: Per WP:THREE you need to be focusing on the very sources and not presenting dictionary entries, youtube, passing mentions ... etc. In that context very loosely speaking (1) above looks to have an impressive shape but its in Hindi and unfortunately I do not know the language. 2. appears Outlook Hindi also wont help.(1 per publication). 3 is the best of the rest with 5,6,7 looking unacceptable for notability purposes and 4 looking very passing. Obviously the awarding of the Padma Shri is helpful in itself. I'm also a little intrigued by [2]. There's no point running about simply trying and badgering me to get me to swing my !vote from draftify to weak keep though ... what we need an explanation of the content of Ref: 1 above from a neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, Indeed #1 is an impressive source with detailed coverage. I am a native Hindi speaker, I will be glad to help you if you have any questions on translation. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my best translation attempt on the article talk page to understand what this is about. It appears the article is a sort of biography relating to have being a founder director on the BiG hospital (whether he is main honcho or one of X founder directors I am not to be knowing.... see also [3], note I've use the wayback archive at that page may be volatile any he may not be id=15 forever.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I am afraid the the translation, which reads like a PR release, does not add to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Its really quite difficult to judge as the automated translation comes out quite WP:PEACOCKy whereas someone versed in both Hindi and English could likely to a better job. It does give some clues to the content of the piece but is not so good in putting it in context On a side note as far as I can (possibly incorrrectly) gather the "BIG" hospital is a private hospital (no WP article) and perhaps not so big as the Patna Medical College and Hospital (where he also works/worked) which is might have a claim at 5400+ beds to be the biggest in the world. This is not properly source by me so I may have made mistakes.09:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark The subject still works in both these hospitals and he seems to be having some kind of ownership on BIG hospital. I am versed in both Hindi and English, FYI the biographies published in the Indian media, are almost always written with an appreciative tone. But it is not hard, to differentiate between facts and fluff, in an article. The fact that his bio has been covered in such detail in a pan India magazine is to be noted here. And this is something that is available online, I am sure there are more offline. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per any bio. Padma Shri is major award and it’s alone sufficient to pass the GNG. I’m agreeing with DBig’s reasoning. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:ANYBIO, and per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla that equating the Padma Shri with the OBE is false. The OBE is a fourth level award within the Order of the British Empire, but there are other awards which can be given to civilians in the UK which are higher than any class of the Order of the British Empire. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Arena Football League team rosters[edit]

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

Arena Football League has folded (again), there is no longer a use for a list of "current" team rosters. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's reasoning. Doesn't seem like there's any info in there that needs to be moved into any of the team articles, etc. Nole (chat·edits) 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ignore all rules. Yeah, notability is not temporary and such but this is a case where we should just do what's right even if we don't have a rule for it. Maybe an enthusiastic editor can incorporate the data into other pages, no objection to that...--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. DMC511 (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We should not have current lists when nothing exists currently. Ajf773 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existent league so there can't be any teams in it. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the league folded there are no current rosters. We can still have "most recent" rosters on the team pages though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hacienda Solano Park, Arizona[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona etc., etc., mobile home parks are not assumed to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear why you continue to recite nonsense about your mass-produced sub-stubs. This is a "subdivision...housing development...unofficial neighborhood" that makes up a third of Census Block Group 811700-3. Here's their website, the only source available on it, and it fails GNG, or do you care to show otherwise? Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with nom. Satellite image confirms this is just a trailer park. As a development/neighborhood within Chandler, Arizona, this falls under bullet two of Geoland. Searching turns up routine real estate listings and similar, but no significant in-depth coverage on which to write an encyclopedic article. MB 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a mobile home park per my newspapers.com search, and it's never significantly covered. Not a legally defined populated place ber WP:GEOLAND. It's a mobile home park here: [4] The proof it's not notable is that it has a Chandler address in this tragic 1970s obituary here: [5] There are a number of these in the Phoenix area which need deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NGEO Lightburst (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to a source cited on the page, this is "not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." It appears to be a ordinary and small trailer park catering to senior citizens. News coverage is routine, and newspaper coverage is non-existent. Even assuming all the sources are reliable, there are between 50 and 100 residents of this development. That fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete most trailer parks are not notable. There are probably exceptions to this general principle, but this place is not such an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bluejacking. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BluejackQ[edit]

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

Relies entirely on self-published sources, no evidence of independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage, therefore failing NWEB and GNG. Ineligible for PROD as previously AFD'd. Twice. SITH (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete since there were two previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^merge to bluejacking: I found several reliable-enough references to the site including some academic papers, but there doesn't seem to be enough to justify a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Shaybah attack[edit]

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

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial edits by any other than the blocked editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral although the article was created by a blocked user, I have some information that I can add to the article. The notable thing about the attack is that it was a tactical attack by the Houthis to ruin the relationship between the Saudi regime and the Emirate regime because that field is disputed between them. Since the attack the relationship between Saudi regime and Emairte regime started to become less friendly which caused the Saudi regime to think about ending the Qatar political dispute. On the other hand blocked editor should not be allowed to create anything in Wikipedia. I will note that an admin who closes must say that it was closed on the ground of G5.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 East–West Pipeline attack[edit]

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

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial edits by any other than the blocked editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Aden Missile Strike[edit]

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

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial edits by any other than the blocked editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete' per WP:NOTNEWS: when the only sources are relatively recent news articles, there's no real notability yet. My gut feeling is that if this gains the historians' notice it will not be treated by them as an independent incident, but will be rolled up into the larger conflict. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon James (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Has only played youth games in England, has only played with the U19 national team, and hasn't played yet with his new team. May well become notable soon, but isn't there yet. Fram (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. 20:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If a rename is desired, it can be handled through the usual processes for article moves. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq[edit]

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

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion - This is certaintly a notable event, the article should not be deleted.XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant enough for keeping it here. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very significant event.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Important as a new aspect of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename – while I am generally against the word "alleged" in many Wikipedia contexts, especially in article titles, calling these strikes "Israeli airstrikes" is a serious case of WP:OR. All of the airstrikes happened significantly later than Israel's one and only hint (not a confirmation) that it was operating in Iraq, against Iranian targets. There is also no evidence that all of the listed airstrikes were carried out by the same party. As for whether the article should be kept, I think there is enough notability to keep it—provided the strikes are examined on a case by case basis, with sufficient WP:RS linking between them. Otherwise clumping them together is a form of WP:OR as well. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and significant Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources regarding this Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Keep arguments raise some good points about evaluating the significance of an award within the overall context of what awards are offered, and for the relevance of population when evaluating national awards (should a national award from Dominica or Monaco be given the same weight as one from China or Brazil?). That said, I don't think this should be taken as a strong test case for the Padma Shri in particular as conferring notability, since this subject has at least one other national award that was also a factor for some commenters. Regardless, the overall consensus in this specific case is to keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Bhalla[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating 2 other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: possibly soft. While I read WP:ANYBIO say suitable awards likely indicate notability it also says there is not necessarily the case for an article. Actually article content and potential and available sources are also reasons for an article meaning and here I think I am seeing from the current sourcing is far too much reliance upon the award itself and dictionary/gazette style sources with a small bit of a research paper. This is not to detract from the RL subject of the article. One basic problem in my opionion is we have not enough content or context in the article. I anyone wishing to keep should present 3 WP:RS sources per WP:THREE. Possibly may also be WP:TOOSOON. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Djm-leighpark. The Padma award by itself, especially when the recipient is an Indian, is not necessarily a sign of notability in the subject's field of interest. It can be a sign of the subject's political connections within the government of the day. Not enough reliable sources, esp. scholarly sources, here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. In addition he has also won the prestigious Dr. B. C. Roy Award (A national award), as mentioned in this source^[1] that also covers the subject in detail. So I am voting keep in lieu of these 2 awards per WP:ANYBIO as well as WP:GNG being met. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://medicaldialogues.in/sir-ganga-ram-hospital-nephrologist-dr-ak-bhalla-conferred-with-dr-bc-roy-award/

Comment: about the Roy Award According to our article this has been awarded to as many as 55 people in the medical field alone in a single year. (that article's ref 42) DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: about the Roy Award Dr. B. C. Roy Award is the highest Indian medical award and is given by the Medical Council of India, the apex body for medical education in India (see here). Numbers are often misleading as India is a country of over 1.35 billion people. A comparison with a country such as France, which has a population of 67 million, 55 awardees a year in India will translate into less than three awards a year in France.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a major award by all standards. Though a fourth level civilian honour in India, you may safely ignore the first award, Bharat Ratna, which is awarded very sparingly, only 48 awardees since 1954. Padma Shri is a recognition of major contributions in the fields of Arts, Civil Service, Literature & Education, Medicine, Public Affairs, Science & Engineering, Social Work, Sports and Trade & Industry. The total number of recipients in the 65 years of its existence is only 1840.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Padma Shri is major award and sufficient for notability. It alone is sufficient to pass our GNG. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep is not possible after prior delete vote. The concept that a Padma Shri is by itself sufficient for notability fell at the precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. B. Buckshey. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The equivalent honour in England is the OBE. This has been repeatedly held not to indicate notability . FWIW, in earlier years I several times argued that it ought to be, but the consensus was always against me, and once that had been established, I followed the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A low grade honor is not sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I fail to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. B. Buckshey establishes consensus that a Padma Shri award is not enough by itself to give presumed notability. Indeed, I find it hard to see why that AfD was closed as Delete with no relists. There were 3 Keep !votes on the basis that a Padma Shri award gives notability, 2 Delete !votes (including the nominator) who argued that it doesn't, and 3 Delete !votes that don't address the Padma Shri. That is not enough to hold up as a consensus-establishing precedent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again Also, it is not strictly true to say that it is the equivalent of an OBE. That is the fourth class of the Order of the British Empire. However, there are higher awards than the highest class of the Order of the British Empire: leaving out Dukes and Earls, which are only created for or bestowed on members of the royal family now, there are Barons/Baronesses, Knights of the Garter and Knights of the Thistle, and Baronets, all higher in precedence than the highest class of the Order of the British Empire, so the OBE comes in about 7th. The Padma Shri is stated to be the 4th highest level of civilian award, not just the fourth highest of a particular order. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And, as far as numbers go, a total of 2840 Padma Shri awards have been made in its 65 year history. Going on the 2019 Queens Birthday Honours List (and remembering that there is also the New Year's Honours List), over 500 OBEs are awarded each year, and over 250 CBEs. The Padma Shri is much more exclusive, especially considering the respective populations of the UK and India. I would certainly argue that all recipients would meet WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen and this subject clearly meet WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award, a country of over 1.35 billion people. I don't really understand why some editor ignore this award? This is obviously WP:IDONTLIKE. DGG what is your problem? You know nothing about of India. btw I'm from Myanmar. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psychomagic (entertainment)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable as a field exclusive of Mentalism. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tridimensionalism[edit]

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

A non-notable art-term (it is a minor notable philosophical term), being marketed as notable and created by living artist Massimo Meda. The editor of this article is preparing Draft:Massimo Meda, which I think from doing a WP:BEFORE will also fail GNG (and they also updated the main "Western Art Movements" template/navbox with "Tridimensionalism"). Outside of blogs/instagram accounts linked to Massimo Meda, there is no mention of "Tridimensionalism" in the art world, and nothing independently linking Massimo Meda to founding it. Tried to CSD this a WP:G11 but was turned down by WilyD, who felt it was better suited to AfD (i.e the language is not overly promotional). So I ask the community at AfD if they think this should be kept. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relief does not "originated in Italy at the end of the 20th century", and " the founder of this technique" (I think they mean "inventor") was definitely not Massimo Meda. And if the article weer to say, well, that's not relief, this is a new innovative technique, because it is entirely built-up from paint, well.. impasto has been around for centuries. There's nothing to this term, except it's use as to market the work of Meda. For a list of painitng techniques that are in actual use by art historians, see http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=impasto&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300053344 Vexations (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good analysis of the article problems by Vexations above. There is also no article on "Tridimensionalismo" in the Italian Wikipedia nor on Massimo Meda (though one was deleted as lacking content). A recent article uses the term to describe works by Meda exhibited in a shop [6] and it is used in a profile piece on an associated gallery site [7] but I am not seeing anything that indicates this to be an established term of art. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not even wrong as far as art history is concerned, and borders on fraud and a word made up in a day. First off, the specific technique described in the page has been used for decades, since at least the mid-20th Century, by Lee Bontecou, Judy Chicago, Niki de Saint Phalle, Betye Saar, and many others, particularly female artists, and the claim by a male artist to having "invented" it smacks of misogyny and trademark violation. Secondly, they called it other things; as noted above by Vexations, relief has been used for centuries as a generic term, while Amy Sillman calls it the "Shape of shapes", and Jasper Johns called this technique to "take an object.", Third, it's a fractal, not a third dimension. Finally, there's no significant coverage of this term, as noted by Britishfinance and AllyD. I think someone is trying to use our charitable organization for a web host. Based on what I see and know, I can't assume good faith. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An IP has tried to remove the AfD tag [8]. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, What an incredible coincidence that that IP geolocates to Genoa, where Meda has a gallery. Vexations (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Vexations, these guys are very determined! Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have also started vandalising my Talk Page per [9]. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Massimo Meda has been embedding themselves into other WP articles despite being non-notable, like Vimercate, and Italian Riviera. Britishfinance (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, that argument in favor of the notability of the subject is one of the more convincing ones, isn't it? I'm going to take a look at the insertions. I noticed a few myself, figured I could wait until this discussion comes to its inevitable conclusion, and do it later, but why wait? After all, Non capisco la merda sull'arte! Vexations (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen McAuley[edit]

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

Non-notable player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the article, seems like it's loaded with fluff to me! Most of those citations seem routine, I really don't see WP:GNG met. Govvy (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most? Which ones don't seem routine? Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons cited by the nominator. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an overwhelming amount of of media coverage, relating to his Liverpool U-23 days, his signing from Saints, his release from Saints, and then his signing by Bohemians, which seems to get a lot of national coverage. Over 300 Wikipedia pageviews yesterday (before today's AFD). There's so much coverage, it's difficult to read through the list of all the articles! Are we sure there's no notability? Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Routine is run-of-the-mill transfer coverage, nothing significant. Giant Snowman 20:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment his move to Bohemians made national news in Ireland, which is a country that requires players meet WP:GNG. This one all depends on whether you think his articles about moving to St Pats and then Bohemians (which cover him specifically, aren't blurbs) are routine or not, but most of the citations in the article are indeed routine. I don't view notability as an either/or - some articles may or may not be notable depending on your lens, and this is one of them. I don't mind keeping this at all as I think he's been significantly covered, but certainly understand if it gets deleted. If it does get deleted, he doesn't need a whole lot else to become notable - maybe draftify this instead of deleting it in case he gets covered again within six months, which I think is rather possible. SportingFlyer T·C 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agree with the nom and other delete !voters. All the coverage appears routine, primary and/or brief. Nothing suggesting this player meets our notability guidelines (or will meet them soon). – Levivich 03:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. On the face of it, one of those articles with much text and little substance. But, given his age and apparent potential, I think it would be worth a draft, per SportingFlyer above, in case he stars for Bohemians and then gets snapped up by an EFL club for next season. A tricky one. Pity he never got a first-team game for Liverpool. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kortlüke[edit]

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

Lack of notability; has she won any significant awards for editing? Has her editing made a significant contribution to a notable work. IMO, if she is notable then I am.TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, I am not so familiar with the rules of English Wikipedia. However, I have expanded the article. I hope I could show evidence for the relevance of this in Germany known film editor. I refer in particular to point 3 here: WP: FILMMAKER "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." --2001:4DD1:E5CF:0:804C:3C25:C6AE:301B (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nomination I'll buy that. I would comment that it is a good idea to include some claim of notability when you first create an article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be closed early unless the delete vote by @Trillfendi: is withdrawn,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Health Reform[edit]

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

Seems to be mostly inaccurate and vastly overdate. most of the sources are long past relevance. Move to a more general page regarding healthcare in Puerto rico Zubin12 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good catch! However, Healthcare and Medicaid would be different articles. This article refers to the Medicaid health plan which is a "subset of the larger public government healthcare delivery system".^[1] It was once called "La Reforma", later it was called "Mi Salud" and then called "The Vital Plan" but they are all Medicaid. Maybe it should be renamed to be Medicaid in Puerto Rico. See this ref and for the current two names- under "Plan Vital Launches" (near the end of the long ref). ^[2] A 2018 source called it Mi Salud again.^[3] The plan name changes^[4]^[5] but the essence of the funding remains, the U.S. Medicaid program available for states and much less available for territories. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quark (technical festival)[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement/press release MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Rereviewed as requested. I have changed my mind, this article simply needs a good bit of restructuring, and neutral rephrasing for statements like Quark, with a footfall exceeding 30,000, witnesses participation from over 200 colleges from across India.. However, until that is done, I still stand by the statement of it reading like a press release. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing.. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MindSpark[edit]

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

Reads like a advertisement/press release. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential bias on the part of the nominator (noted above) aside, this article is an unambiguous violation of WP:PROMO. Section titles such as The Odyssey with no references, and a Workshops section that begins with an unreferenced tagline added for no conceivable encyclopedic reason, are all part of the problem. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innovision (festival)[edit]

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

Reads like a advertisement/press release, no improvement on this status since 2017. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I have reviewed this article again as requested, and have decided this AfD should be kept. The article is definitely a press release in my eyes, with content including a very large list of events composed solely of advertising language. For example, take this snippit from the Run IO Hackathon section: With developer talks and guest lecture, this is a one of a kind hackathon which eastern India has never seen. This event aims aim to bring together individuals with a diverse set of talents from the vast talent pool of this country under one roof to brainstorm together and develop sustainable solutions to real-life problems.. This reeks of advertising, with language like One of a kind and vast talent pool of this country.

This is only one section, I strongly recommend reviewing the entireity of the events section to see the problem i'm getting at here.

Problems in other sections exist too, with advertising language in almost every section, and the majority of sources being the event's own website, various list sites, and the sites of associates like eastindiacomedy.com. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you can be WP:BOLD and remove sections that you feel are poorly written and poorly sourced if that is a concern. As long as there are sources that can prove teh notability of the topic, the AfD does not make sense. So please judge the notability and then take a decision on withdrawing the AfD or standing by it. some for other afds where you pinged me. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnoesis[edit]

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

Unsourced advertisement/event listing. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I have found that this nominator has AfDed 9 Articles, 7 PRODs and 6 CSDs. of articles in a particular Category:Technical festivals in India I strongly believe WP:BEFORE was not done despite being clearly advised to so on Helpdesk.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Perhaps you're not aware, but WP:ATTP have never carried much weight around here. If there was a problem with WP:BEFORE let the closing admin decide that, or alternatively just point to the sister-wiki, search for additional sources, etc. and post the results here if that provides evidence to keep. If you think a nominator has problems then address those elsewhere not by hounding the author across multiple AFDs. While it is true that an article written as an advertisement is not itself grounds for deletion but only for clean-up that was not the only reason given for the nomination, note the adjective "Unsourced". 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, nominating scores of article for deletion without WP:BEFORE is disruptive and can even lead to edit restrictions if continued. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Agree if true, but this is not the proper venue to address that issue. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alternatively Draft/Userfy pending future notability. Per WP:NEVENT there needs to be diverse, in-depth, and persistent coverage. I reviewed the google books, news, scholar, and general search results. Even for the last only six pages of websites were listed and almost none of the coverage is independent and so the notability criteria are not met. Merging is sometimes an alternative but there isn't enough independent coverage here to warrant more than a sentence or two on the topic. Would be willing to strike and reconsider if new evidence shows that WP:NEVENT is met. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The event might be notable, but the current article should go in the bit bucket. It reads like an advertisement, and has unreliable sources like Instagram and Facebook. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be some confusion as to which events are senior-level competitions which would cause this topic to meet NSKATE. However, consensus has cleared some, and indicates that the events mentioned in this article do not qualify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maiia Khromykh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSKATE says "Figure skating figures are presumed notable if they:- "Have competed at a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (Skate America, Skate Canada International, Trophee Eric Bompard, Cup of China, Cup of Russia, NHK Trophy, Bofrost Cup on Ice)" - According to this, Khromykh has competed in the Cup of Russia at the third and fifth stages. As to GNG, as is common with subjects who are not from English-speaking countries, the majority of sources are not in the English language - try searching under her name in cyrillic - Майя Хромых - and see just a few of the Russian sources: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Spokoyni (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confused. The guideline is specifically referring to the ISU Grand Prix event Cup of Russia. She has never been selected for that. She competed at the non-ISU Cup of Russia, a domestic Russian qualifying event. It's a complete different, non-international event that hundreds of Russian skaters have participated in. They do not automatically become notable for appearing in such minor, purely domestic events. Consult her ISU bio to see which international events she has participated in, Cup of Russia is not listed because she has never competed in the international event: [18] Hergilei (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability trumps WP:NSKATE. Significant coverage shown, still keep. Spokoyni (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's true that significant coverage trumps WP:NSKATE but is the amount she has received significant in comparison to other Russian juniors? Her coverage is nowhere near what Valieva has received (or Trusova, Kostornaia, Shcherbakova as juniors). Hergilei (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The subject appears to meet WP:NSKATE as Khromykh has competed in the Cup of Russia https://fskate.ru/skaters/4874.html. There are also a lot of non-English sources that appear to demonstrate sigcov (based on google translate) Taewangkorea (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above. The ISU Grand Prix Cup of Russia is a completely different event than the non-ISU Russian domestic qualifying event Cup of Russia. The second is a minor event that does not qualify under Wiki's notability guidelines. Here is her ISU bio, Cup of Russia is not listed in her appearances: [19] Hergilei (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eteri Tutberidze#Juniors as headlines about her in Russia mainly refer to as being one of Tutberidze's pupils. Khromykh is amazingly talented but it's WP:TOOSOON. If you redirect it's easy to restore her own article once she's competed in these other events. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need far better sourcing to create an article on a 13-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything that shows this 13 year old figure skater is WP notable. She doesn't meet the notability criteria for figure skaters and coverage consists of listings of results. The Russian ISU event that carries notability is now known as Rostelecom Cup and is a senior level event. The bottom line is that neither WP:NSKATE nor WP:GNG appear close to being met. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. As the President of Mauritius, the subject clearly meets WP:NPOL. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC) (Undoing and reclosing a previous unsigned closure.)[reply]

Pradeep Roopun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Andrew Base (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to meet WP:NPOL by being a President of Mauritius as noted and demonstrated in the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL - he's the current President of Mauritius and has previously held two Ministerial offices in the country's government. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article obviously needs some improvement, but the president of an independent country is inherently notable even if the article isn't FA-quality yet. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the quality of the article in its current state — which means that if good sources exist to improve the article with, which they certainly do here if you do a simple Google News search, then we keep the article and allow it to improve rather than deleting it just for not already being in better condition than it is. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG - embassies are not inherently notable. Sources are primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - I would be prepared to support this article being merged to Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. While the embassy is not notable, it's reasonable that the bilateral relations article should contain details of both embassies.----Pontificalibus 09:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similarly length and sourced articles should then also be considered for deletion: Embassy of the United States, Tbilisi, Embassy of the United States, Pretoria, Embassy of the United States, Ulaanbaatar, Embassy of the United States, Malabo, Embassy of the United States, Abu Dhabi, Embassy of the United States, Warsaw, Embassy of the United States, Tirana, Embassy of the United States, Juba, Consulate General of Afghanistan, Jeddah, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Mexico City, Embassy of the United Kingdom, Quito, Embassy of Germany, Chișinău, Embassy of Germany, Bangkok, Embassy of Germany, Bangladesh, Embassy of Germany, Brasília, Embassy of Germany, Moscow, Embassy of Germany, Tel Aviv, Embassy of Germany, Wellington, Embassy of Germany, Windhoek. These are diplomatic mission articles of the US, UK, and Germany that I believe have similar properties. There should be more at Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country CakalangSantan (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, some of the information in the embassy article has worth and is not out of place in the relations article. The relations article would of course need the vice versa information also. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or hold an RfC to decide whether to delete all non-noteworthy embassy articles on Wikipedia). It would be absurd to delete this article, considering the 1,500+ year history between Indonesia and Sri Lanka, but to leave up every other article about Indonesian embassies (e.g. Embassy_of_Indonesia,_Windhoek). As CakalangSantan notes, this isn't confined to Indonesia, and there are hundreds, possibly thousands of articles about embassies that are no more notable than this one. -Kieran (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This physical embassy is probably not 1,500 years old. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no need to hold for an RFC as this can be dealt on its own merits. Either the article satisfies the requirements of WP:GEOFEAT or it does not. As the nominator I don’t have a problem with it being merged t o Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then all other embassy articles should be assessed on whether they should also be merged to their respective bilateral relations articles. CakalangSantan (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CakalangSantan, my point exactly each of the respective articles should be dealt with on the own individual merits. There doesn't need to be a unilateral deletion or merge as each article is different and some may be notable in their own right. However in respect to this article there is no evidence that I have been able to find that demonstrates that it is notable and no editor to date has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Dan arndt (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything will happen to the other articles after this article has been dealt with. My intention was not a unilateral deletion or merge, but a unilateral AfD on similar articles (I've listed a few in a previous comment). CakalangSantan (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, the wider issue is that, actually going by what's on Wikipedia right now, the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable. There may not be a agreed-upon policy, but there is a very clearly agreed-upon practice. If the policy and the practice disagree, then the way forward is an RfC to review the policy and come to a community consensus. The outcome of that might be a multiple-AfD of thousands of embassy articles, but it would be done in a way that ensured consensus and community engagement. Piecemeal AfDs do not seem like a good solution. -Kieran (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran - where is your evidence that "the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable". I have gone through all the AfD cases for the last two years and if anything it is clear that almost all AfDs for embassies and consul-generals have actually been deleted on the grounds that they are not inherently notable. So I'd like to understand where you've come up with this viewpoint as it doesn't seem to be supported. Dan arndt (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly from the contents of Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country, which is full of articles that wouldn't pass WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG on their own merits. -Kieran (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially Kieran you are saying that "the current consensus is that embassies are inherently notable" purely on the basis that other stuff exists - if it is actually what you are saying, then it is a totally flawed argument. You even admit that most of those wouldn't pass notability standards anyway. As I've stated previously embassies are not inherently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Beijing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT and there are numerous others. Dan arndt (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep The article is lacking content and could be better if it is merged with Indonesia–Sri Lanka relations as mentioned by Pontificalibus. Abishe (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Joel[edit]

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

Non-notable producer and song-writer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO & lacks in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 03:20 05 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable musici producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo (actor)[edit]

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable source coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. In addition, this performer would not even have passed the now-deprecated PORNBIO SNG. The award wins did not satisfy PORNBIO's criteria and nominations didn't count. With the exception of two trivial mentions in semi-reliable publications, the article's references consist of IAFD and porn award rosters. An independent search for sources found nothing more substantial than being a very popular search term on the Internet, a distinction that should be taken with a ton of salt. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (User:Mcollinscalz). Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Dialysis Accreditation Commission[edit]

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

In my opinion, it does not meet the notability criteria. ZaaraTE (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudraker[edit]

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

A disambiguation page between two entries, one of which doesn't exist and the other is a redirect. The whole disambiguation page is useless. Delete. JIP | Talk 12:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots, although that list seems of questionable value. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the redirect which it was created as before being turned into a dab page when the now-deleted CloudRaker (advertising agency) was created. PamD 10:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Museum Møhlmann. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Realists Exhibition[edit]

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

Looks like promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 10:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is pure promotion, as the nomination says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is part of a series of three with Rob Møhlmann and Museum Møhlmann all describing another aspect of the artist his life and work. This article can easily be merged into one of the other two, if this is needed.

As to the sources, over the years the annual exhibition has been mentioned in half of the national daily newspapers such as Algemeen Dagblad, de Volkskrant, Nederlands Dagblad and Trouw, and on the websites and/or curriculum vitae's of over 200 hundred artist in the Netherlands most of them professional artists and listed as such at the Netherlands Institute for Art History databank rkd.nl.

Internationally this annual event seem to be known as the Independent Realists Exhibition and the article should be renamed as such. This could be done right now.

Back to the sources. There have been catalogs published of the 13th to the 18th edition of the festival, which gives plenty of information about this event.

Again, it seems to be the question of the English/American/International Wikipedia allows us to write about regional events with a national and some international impact. -- Mdd (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about independent sources? And sources that describe the event in-depth? Passing mentions are not very helpful. The Banner talk 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with a merge to Museum Møhlmann, given proper sourcing. As to catalogs of the shows, those are not independent do not contribute anything to notability. All three of these articles have a promotional feel to them. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we can keeps this in mind. In the light of an earlier ongoing AfD discussion I like to bring forward first, that a literal interpretation of notability and fear of promotion has lead us to practically zero representation of the front of the art scene (of the Netherlands) here.

There are contemporary internationals, nation-wide, regional and local galleries and art events (and visual artists as well) which are often active for decades. They don't get through.... because it is promotional?? A large part of being an artist is to make promotion, and art events are all about it. Should this be boycotted because they are doing their job?

The thing is that there is the commercial promotion to sell products and services, and there is the art promotion to present and represent artists concepts and their points of views at the world. Selling the art works is only a small part of the art business.

Personally I think a smaller portion of the art world and artists should be allowed to represent itself here... and do what they are already doing. We should be aware that they work in our encyclopedic way, and we should be aware that we are not being flooded by articles about just local or regional events with little impact.

Beside a literal interpretation of the simplified rules of notability, we could start to image to give a comprehensive overview of the art world in a specific area. Now the thing is, that with this article I have the impression this is going in the right direction.

Now I added the Category:Art exhibitions in the Netherlands, and only now noticed this article has already been trimmed down for 75%. The category allows us to see what other art events are represented in the Netherlands and beyond.

We can then see that indeed... this is the first Dutch annual art event represented here..!! And before that.... 18 years of zero representation. I have a great deal of respect for the person, who started this and I hope we can do a better job together. -- Mdd (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules do not work the way you suggest. People or events have to meet WP:GNG or a special notability guidelines like WP:ARTIST. a literal interpretation of the simplified rules of notability is exactly how it works here, as we have millions of pages to apply those guidelines to. If you want a broader discussion of notability, head over to WP:villagepump or the talk page of WP:N ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will start this broader discussion of notability one day. I agree for now the current notability rules must applied. I also noticed there are similar articles here such as on the KunstRAI and the TEFAF, which gives us a lead to how this subject can be represented here in a for the subject more acceptable way. If this is here not possible, merger could be the solution. -- Mdd (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources haven't been proffered, so redirect to Museum Møhlmann. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Dutch WP has an article on this with a bit more info (Hooray!), but its up for deletion with sources/coi concerns, see here (Drat!:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I received a link on my talk page from User:Robert Paul Peters to have a look at something in regard to this article's deletion. The link was a "Constant Contact" item, i.e. an email tracker. Be careful when clicking on such links if you receive one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ThatMontrealIP, I sincerely doubt that this was intentionally. I noticed the link was to a news bulletin of the Art Renewal Center, which normally present itself at the artrenewal.org. Its seems this message was mirrored at the campaign.r20.constantcontact.com website. I guess User:Robert Paul Peters just wanted to draw your attention to the artrenewal.org/Blog/Month/201911. -- Mdd (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is still a tracker. In any case the link is trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more an announcement of an exhibition than an in-depth source. The Banner talk 14:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyScience[edit]

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

Weak delete. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not finding enough suitable material to write an article with. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breadline Cafe[edit]

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

Perfect example of a WP:REFBOMB for a run-of-the-mill venue. Article is sourced to the restaurant's own website, Google Maps, and brief routine mentions in travel guides of the county. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Reywas92^Talk 09:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 09:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains no indication as to why this might be notable, so it's no surprise that significant coverage can't be found.----Pontificalibus 13:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not listed on the NRHP, and it is not included in any NRHP historic district, i can see that from National Register of Historic Places listings in Okanogan County, Washington. But it seems like a historic building. The current article mentions there being "historical items" about it, i think meaning local newspaper articles about its history. Certainly the current version of article is inflated and needs to be edited down. Some source about history would bring this more clearly over the line to being notable, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No significant coverage, as noted above. Since it's in a historic district, and there is some coverage in reliable sources, I'd merge it into Omak, Washington. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omak is a settlement of under 5000 people, whose article is surprisingly long for its size. I seems to me a small NN cafe, no more significant than any other shop there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Newspapers.com search only finds minor mentions in The Spokesman-Review. Searching on the long-term tenant of the building, Omak Beverages finds almost nothing (except the Cafe saying they are in the former Omak Beverages building). With WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant and no coverage of the "historic" building, nothing left but delete. MB 17:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subject lacks SIGCOV. Primary sourced. Lightburst (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Burningham[edit]

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

Promotional article for political candidate, does not appear to pass WP:NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 09:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 09:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 09:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future political primaries — the notability test under WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But nothing here demonstrates that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, and the referencing is not demonstrating a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered more notable than most other candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if he wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article today. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring politicians' campaign brochures: we keep articles about people who have held notable political offices, not about everybody who ever ran for one. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every candidate for a nomination is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Far too soon- months even before the primary. There are several candidates every four years, many of which end up being "also-rans". We rarely keep first-time candidates, even for state-wide office. If and when he becomes the nominee, then we can think about it. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailaasa[edit]

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

This is an island that an accused criminal fleeing prosecution purchased & declared a "nation." Fails WP:GNG by all appearances, even if this were to somehow be recognized as a country it's WP:TOOSOON. At best it would rate a mention at Nithyananda. JamesG5 (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

This is a current event which we don't know fully about. Information on this page can change rapidly. Even if this country ceases to exist in near future, we should save the page as a historical event. If the current event doesn't generate much information then we should transfer this page to Nithyananda page.

Deletion violates hardwork

Serjatt6 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Serjatt6's opening sentence. "This is a current event which we don't know fully about" is a great, concise summary of Wikipedia is not for news. Even as an island, it's not inhabited and hasn't received much significant coverage, so I'm doubtful if it meets GEOLAND. Per JamesG5, it's just too soon. If lots of reliable sources start referring to this island as such, there might be a case to make for having it redirect to Nithyananda#Fugitive, but it's still not notable in itself, at least at the moment. SITH (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nithyananda. Significant but too soon to have its own page. Even Nithyananda#Fugitive has only one line of information. Jay (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no point in redirecting what is effectively a rumor. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete ~~Delete(changed from dont delete)~~ As for Notabilty, it has been widely reported about on Indian cable news and the Wikipedia page of kailaasa already has two third party sources. Also it shouldn't be treated as a sovereign nation but as a micronation and there are many articles about different micronations on Wikipedia. I agree that it's too soon but I dont think it should be deleted because of that Ankur Bhandari (talk) 8:28 pm

Wednesday, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Redirect, at best. ∯WBG^converse 07:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nithyananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloimahumanbeing (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Speedy Delete as it's a hoax Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE.--Unknown3599 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Speedy Delete per (G3) Hoax and~~ per WP:NOPAGE and should be deleted without a redirect ~~since Ecuador clarified that this is fake news on twitter.~~ courtesy ping Jay Praxidicae, Ankur Bhandari, User:Winged Blades of Godric, Helloimahumanbeing, if they would like to change their vote. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, good find, I'd say it's a potential speedy delete per HOAX (G3) in that case. SITH (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~indeed, I would support a speedy here. I have changed my !vote~~ --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC) struck per discussion below. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax per G3.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I think this should be deleted for other reasons, I just want to note that Twitter account is two months old, not verified and we have no way of telling if it's legitimate and it should not be used for anything. Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And just as I expected, that's a fake Twitter account. Please see this one which is linked from their official .gov site. CC DBigXray, Jay, Winged Blades of Godric. And here is their verified Facebook page which makes no mention of any press release or the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx Praxidicae, this is strange that the official account has not tweeted in the last 8 months. I will note that ANI has also picked up the news which looks quite legitimate. But since there are doubts, it is better to be on the safe side. changed my !vote back. fyi User:StraussInTheHouse .--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is another reason we shouldn't be considering TNN an RS. I was about to post at RSN for this exact reason as it's not the first time they've failed to fact check. See here: Take for example, this piece, which comes from this on this controversial topic. A 5 second search would show anyone with the ability to read that the account they cited for the press release is not legitimate and they take the word of another source, like a game of telephone. This is the supposed tweet it is all based on. It is 2 months old and the embassy's .gov website links their official account Twitter Facebook, neither of which have published this supposed press release nor do they make mention of the subject. In fact, searching for the supposed text/word the embassy released gives nothing but rehashed articles citing The News Minute. I would expect any journalist or publication with a modicum of integrity to do basic fact checking and it appears that they do not. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, it definitely should be deleted but we should never be using content anywhere like those I've pointed out above. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, my default is to revert to a delete !vote on the original rationale. SITH (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, yes I am aware TNN is not RS and are known to run propaganda series. My point was ANI who are supposed to have stronger journo ethics and reliability are also doing this mistake here. User:Winged Blades of Godric and User:Harshil169, you might want to take a look at this. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI and ethics -LOL. At any case, TNN is not a RS, IMO (and I will argue to such extents, over RSN) and Dhanya is way too invested in debunking Nithyananda's cult, to expect unbiased coverage. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I know, I was speaking in comparative terms, "ANI stronger in comparison to TNN" --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Where Is Thy God Now Godman ——SN 54129 17:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, I feel like that's partly from Psalms... SITH (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae and WP:NOTLUNACY, which I just invented now. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go to officially propose that? This place needs it some days. JamesG5 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete "The alleged location of the micronation is an island near Trinidad and Tobago or Ecuador." lololololol Reywas92^Talk 08:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely place. I take all my imaginary holidays there. ——SN 54129 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may winter there next year! :-D JamesG5 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on Delete Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters#Companions of the Hall. Or elsewhere as editors may determine. Sandstein 10:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of the Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable group, fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. At best soft delete by redirecting to its only notable member (Drizzt Do'Urden). Nothing to merge as the content is 100% WP:FANCRUFT with few PRIMARY sources. The last AfD presented several sources (none of which was actually added to the article in years since), but they are mentions in passing (GNG requires in-depth coverage). I did review the sources and they are clearly not sufficient, ex. [21] - this is the very definition of a mention in passing in a single sentence that contains not a shred of real-world-related analysis. The best source cited is this PhD thesis, but again, it only mentions this group in passing (I want to stress it: not a single full sentence is devoted to non-plot analysis of this concept); none of those sources goes an inch beyond pure WP:PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AFDs or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Generally multiple AfDs with not an ounce of improvement show that argument in the previous AfDs were likely invalid. This has no sources. It fails WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. As mentioned in the nom, the information found in reliable, secondary sources is generally passing mentions or plot-only information, both for the group as a whole and for the individual members (with the exception of Drizzt). Those brief sources, along with the fact that as the main characters of a popular franchise this is a very likely search term, are enough that they should be included in the list of Forgotten Realms characters, but not as a separate article. That said, whatever merging is to be done should be done rather sparingly, as a good amount of the information here appears to be unsourced/original research. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters, fails WP:GNG, as all sources are primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Vision Initiative[edit]

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

Non-notable initiative by a singular organization -- not sure if it should be a redirect or deleted all together -- would love some additional insight from folks Sadads (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 07:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although the International Food Policy Research Institute has bracketed various papers since 1993 as part of its 2020 Vision, I am not seeing evidence of its wider recognition and distinct notability. The article itself is providing little more than a primary-sourced list of past conferences on related themes. A Redirect to International Food Policy Research Institute is a possible option, though the organisation itself appears to use just "2020 Vision" as its term (e.g. [22]) so I am dubious whether "2020 Vision Initiative" would be utilised as an effective redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Govindarajulu[edit]

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

Non notable author and seems to have breached the WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local historian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local expert lacking significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he is briefly quoted in some other newspapers besides The Hindu, that seems to be the only one that has published profiles of him, so there don't seem to be the multiple independent sources required to meet WP:GNG. He is described as an author, but no books are named, and his name does not appear in the National Library of India's author catalogue, so he couldn't meet WP:NAUTHOR either. The award is not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Húrin the Tall[edit]

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

Minor character from the Middle-earth universe. Aside from a few mentions in the Return of the King (primary source) and a few brief (not in-depth) mentions in articles, nothing exists in the way of sources. Not enough about this fellow to make an article out of. Hog Farm (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just part of the background cast of characters. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkien WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This character has not been meaningfully discussed by journalists or academics. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While notable in the fictional history of Gondor, he is not notable to the plot of LotR, and 3rd party, secondary reliable source coverage is not to the level to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avranc[edit]

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

Minor character from The War of the Jewels (LOTR backstory). I could only find one RS in my WP:BEFORE but it's not in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Also lacks substantial in-universe notability. Better suited for a fan wiki. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tolkien WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very minor background character. Does not even appear in the Simirillion, and gets not even a naming in LotR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to not keep. The "keep" or "merge" opinions make no arguments and are discounted as pure votes. Where to redirect to is unclear and up to editors. Sandstein 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Pain[edit]

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

Another fictional character with serious notability problem. The most I can find about is similar to the current source in the article, which is a single sentence, i.e., passing mention in a Kotaku. I don't see anything more in-depth that's independent, reliable and not a plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't remember how I came to this page a while ago, but it was absolutely the worst. I did a solid round of edits for garbage prose and splat, but in the end I don't think this deserves its own article. At best, the subject deserves a paragraph in Planescape.--Jorm (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). No earthly reason to delete information that doesn't need deleting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planescape - While she is an important element to that setting, the non-primary sources about her are fairly passing. Of the two potential redirect targets, Planescape or Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons), the former is by far the better article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Versageek. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Shooting at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

There is another article with the same name TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Richardson[edit]

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

Justification: insufficient notability both as a subject and for inclusion in several categories (e.g. space scientists). Most notable achievement is as a young community activist promoting science-related efforts. All other minor recognition, including several sourced articles, are merely reporting on or direct responses to the singular philanthropic achievement. 14.207.5.104 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found Time, NPR, ABCNews, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor. She is an activist who has been raising money since she was 9. A bit special I'd say. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will not suggest deleting it. The article meets criteria, it just needs a little hand to rewrite it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is at best short, human interest type stories. These are not the things that build actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is there so it should be kept. Subject has received coverage far beyond the local news outlets who typically report on the doings of school-age children. The focus of the article is correctly centered upon the present activist – who is clearly making waves – rather than the future astronaut. StonyBrook (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, including NBC News, ABC News, The Florida Times, Mashable, and others, including People.com, Face2Face Africa, and this book: [23]. (I'm not sure we should have her full date of birth, though.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Rod of Seven Parts. Seems like a sensible compromise. Sandstein 06:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional item passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and extreme level fancruft. While the prior AfD found, finally, a single non-primary source that mentions it ([24]) the reference is in passing. The Rod of SEVEN Parts in the form of magical artifacts is mentioned there briefly, the chapter is entitled The Rod of MANY Parts, discusses other magical artifacts (Rod of EIGHT Parts, etc.). Furthermore, the Rod of Seven Parts as discussed there does not refer to a magical artifact but to a storytelling principle, so the article as written should get TNTed anyway since it if anything is notable, it is not a random DnD magical treasure, but said storytelling principle (however, I don't think this said principle can be called notable with one source, and I don't see it discussed anywhere else). Nothing to merge anywhere. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT and TNT at best. Kacper IV (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reading those old discussions shows how much the Wikipedia has evolved, I can't believe that at one time "keep because so-and-so is a sore loser" was not challenged. If one cannot source fictional elements to something outside of the sphere in which it was created, e.g. sourcebooks, handbooks, Dragon Magazine, etc... then it does not belong here. ValarianB (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nomination. This is not notable in any sense of the word. There have never been any good sources actually presented. This is simply one of those articles where a bunch of people pile on for it to become an inclusionist vs deletionist fight for some unfathomable reason. TTN (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outside of primary sources, references to the Rod are fairly passing, mostly being relegated to "Top Ten" style lists that don't do much more than describe plot details about what it is. The source mentioned above, found in the prior AFD, is, as the nom said, not really about the fictional object itself. And, regardless, it seems to be the only real source that could really be considered a reliable, secondary source giving more than passing coverage on it which, alone, is not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. It could potentially be used as a Redirect target to such things like The Rod of Seven Parts (one of the adventures that it was the centerpiece of), but that seems to be about it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AFD. Failing that, merge any useful data and Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as above. (I'd argue strict keep, but I have to admit I don't see the point of having two separate articles, one ostensibly about the macguffin in the other.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG, zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - It seems a source mentioned in the previous AFD was lost in the shuffle. Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives is a major piece of coverage in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. Pages 87–89 in that source discuss the object in detail, not just descriptively, but with analysis, and quotes from multiple game developers who talk about how the item inspired their own game design choices. There's also Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Experience of Imagined Worlds, which isn't quite as big, but still almost two pages (130–131) that do some analysis of the topic. Those two combine to create enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits

The first source appears to be about a general gaming concept that isn't inherently linked to the item and the module more than the item itself. The second source is pretty trivial. I don't see how either makes for a stand-alone topic. TTN (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the first source, as I think it is about the item itself: "The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons...". It then goes on to talk specifically about assembling the rod, mentioning the seven Latin words on each piece, which is a direct reference to the D&D item as the inspiration for the general gaming concept. I hope others will examine the source and judge for themselves. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly mention and discuss this source in my OP post above, and the issue is it is not about this item. It discusses a literary concept, and not a particular magical item. "The rod of many parts" =/= "Rod of Seven Parts". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote further to make my point cleaer. I've added bolding:

The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons numbered "R7" and entitled "Dwarven" Quest for the Rod of Seven Parts. In this scenario, adventurers seek out the seven fragments of a magical staff called the Rod of Law. Each of these sections has its own magical properties that combine when the staff is reassembled to provide the strength to vanquish the Queen of Chaos. Each part of the Rod of Seven is named after one word of a Latin sentence, with each section reading respectively "Ruat," "Coelum," "Fiat," "Justitia," "Ecce," "Lex," and "Rex". This phrase translates to "Though Chaos Reign, Let Justice Be Done. Behold! Law is King" (boxed set, insert).

The text is specifically talking about the Rod of Seven Parts as the originator of the concept. And later on:

Hence, the meaning of the quest is emergent, acquired through the complex manipulations required to find all parts of the staff. As the scenario book explains, "The quest for the Rod of Seven Parts begins when the player characters embark on a search for the first piece...."

And finally, in the first sentence of the next paragraph:

The "rod of seven parts" principle carries forward from the 1982 module...

I don't see how it could be any more explicitly referring to the item itself, and the game design concept it embodies and, more crucially, essentially birthed. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes to show that the Ro7P is mentioned in this context in passing (GNG requires in-depth analysis). The discussed concept is different (but also not notable, I looked for sources for it too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an item that has been in D&D canon for over 40 years and has external sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, "being in canon of a ficitonverse for few decades" has ZERO connection to anything related to GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good arguments in the previous AfD it is vexatious to renominate over and over. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given extensive discussion I'm not sure a relist will make consensus clearer (as opposed to the current no consensus I see) but since there has been a move towards keep since Torchiest's analysis let's see if we can find consensus and avoid a possible 5th nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Closely linked concepts, very close name match. This doesn't need two stand-alone articles, and the real-world concept (RPG accessory) has more weight than the fictional concept (artefact). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG, and the redirect target also fails GNG and WP:NBOOK currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Somehow I didn't notice there were two separate articles for the item itself an a gaming book about it. I think merging them makes sense both in terms of strengthening their combined notability and in removing confusion. There's no clear reason why the artifact page wouldn't have the definite article The in the title anyway. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 21:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as the nom). Good merge target found, I prefer merge as well right now. The accessory is notable per NBOOK and can contain some info about the fictional gadget/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While two-thirds of the feedback here is in favor of keeping, three editors are providing no additional analysis and don't appear based in policy. That said, there is a case that the secondary sourcing meets GNG, and as the discussion hasn't developed the arguments out on both sides, I think a "no consensus" close makes the most sense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starjammers[edit]

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional plot summary. Where is the literary, scholarly analysis of this niche comicverse organization? Please share any if you can find it. I do note that our page seems a bit more developed than https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Starjammers_(Earth-616) so any interested fan might want to consider copying some of our content over there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found multiple source on the team. I will use prose here at individual times:

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Please use prose because all I see is a WP:GOOGLEHITS list. Please explain how those sources are reliable, independent, in-depth, and go beyong WP:PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: IGN = "The Starjammers were originally conceived by artist Dave Cockrum (best known for co-creating iconic X-Men characters like Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler). Cockrum first pitched the Starjammers concept to Marvel to be used in "tryout" anthology books like Marvel Premiere and Marvel Spotlight, but the company never had room to include Cockrum's stories. Eventually, Cockrum brought the concept to Uncanny X-Men writer Chris Claremont, and the characters made their debut in 1977's Uncanny X-Men #104. Cockrum and Claremont also decided to add the twist that Corsair was Cyclops and Havok's long-lost father in order to justify making the Starjammers a recurring presence in the X-Men books."Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal.media said similar: "Back in the 1970s, artist Dave Cockrum created a band of intergalactic space-pirates and freedom-fighters known as the Starjammers. Although Cockrum had initially hoped to have the Starjammers appear in their own series, he was doomed to disappointment; at the time, Marvel liked to try out new concepts in the Marvel Spotlight and Marvel Premiere series, but both were fully-booked for two years solid. Frustrated and impatient, Cockrum approached X-Men writer Chris Claremont, and persuaded him to integrate the Starjammers into his planned cosmic direction. Claremont and Cockrum were a tremendous team, and it didn't take much effort for them to weave the Starjammers into the X-Men comics. They revealed that the Starjammers were led by Major Christopher Summers, the father of Cyclops and Havok. Christopher and his wife had been abducted by the alien empire of the Shi'ar years ago, and after his wife's tragic death, Christopher led a handful of slaves in an escape. He took up the name Corsair, and led the escapees as pirates and rebels."Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: I do appreciate the quotes, it is so much nicer to work with actual content rather than claims of 'it's notable'. That said, if this is the extent of what we have, it's in effect is a reliable source for publication history and minor elements of plot summary. I don't see any analysis that is related to literary theory, significance, or such. It is effectively saying that Artist A and B created a story, wanted to publish it in such and such way, but in the end published it in a slightly different way. I am sorry, but I think that while this may merit a two-three sentences in both the biographical articles about the notable artists as well as in X-Men article (or two or three, Cyclops is likely notable), I am still not convinced that this topic merits a stand-alone entry. Look at the article: it's 99% fancruft in-universe plot summary. And all we have from your sources is a sentence or two about publication history for this. Is this really something that encyclopedia should have? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jhenderson777. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided give enough real world info, and pass WP:GNG. GNG is a relatively low bar to pass, and I don't see that it contains anything about the info having to be analytical in nature. Yes, the article is largely plot and could do with substantial trimming, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. They are a good Marvel Comics teams. Plus @Jhenderson777: and @Killer Moff: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jhenderson777. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jhenderson777. Dark Knight 2149 22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources above seem to be passing mention after passing mention. Sources on fiction need to have some kind of real world information to be considered significant per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. If the source regurgitates the plot or offers up a passing mention, it doesn't provide significant coverage. TTN (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TTN. Fails the significant mention criterion of GNG no matter how much it gets WP:REFBOMBed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Akiniymika[edit]

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

The subject is a junior athlete, currently not meeting WP:NATH. Presented sources are passing mentions or mere database listings, not enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Google searches do not emit anything substantial. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind reading the notability criteria for sport entry again especially 2, 7 and Basic criteria in line with the content of the article and it's references? Danidamiobi (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the subject meeting either criteria. If you are indicating that she is meeting NATH then please demonstrate it below with keep!vote. Hitro talk 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a keep or a delete to decide whether a relist should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a clear-cut case. Youth who falls well short of the criteria. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not come close to meeting WP:NATH. According to a link in the aritcle, her current world ranking in the 200m is 320th. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 10:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Twilley[edit]

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

Super-early career researcher who has received an early career prize. I note that L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards optimistically redlinks each and every recipient, but I'm pretty certain that in this case and in absence of anything else, we are looking at a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 6 does not remotely come up to passing WP:Prof#C1. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment as creator: I created it at an edit-a-thon from a list of possible biographies; it seemed borderline to me. So I totally get the WP:TOOSOON comment. Maybe move it to Draft space? Liannadavis (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving to draft makes much sense - that is only appropriate if there is an expectation that the issue (here, lack of notability) can be remedied within a short time; but we are looking at career-level time spans here. Probably several years? Drafts shouldn't sit around that long, and indeed are deleted after six months of no improvement. Deletion and recreation when/if it becomes appropriate would seem more sensible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can move the article to draft yourself by copying its source into your sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that may be a good alternative. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems a borderline case, but it's not hard to imagine a GNG pass in the next six or twelve months (say, the L'Oréal-UNESCO award plus some news coverage of her work being licensed). I'd be happy with userfying the content as suggested above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I have found and added a couple of sources, and also deleted one that had the same wording as the UNESCO page. Although the Sunday Times (South Africa) and The Citizen (South Africa) are both independent, reliable sources, they are both covering her Rising Talent award - as is the UNESCO source, so are almost WP:BLP1E. The other source I added does not have significant coverage, just says that she also received a UNESCO/L'Oréal doctoral fellowship. So, WP:TOOSOON, but probably worth keeping in the creator's sandbox for when there is more news about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Xanth[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, it does not. And neither does Xanth, I am afraid (outside of the list of publications which can be listed on the writer's bio, list of works section) but we can revisit this one in a week or so after this one bites the dust. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its justification seems to be the explanation of various puns. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xanth#Geography. Goustien (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Life (musician)[edit]

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

Nothing that indicates notability, huge referencing problems - contains only one footnote. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. For reasons mentioned below. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Contains only one footnote" doesn't convince me that you looked anywhere but in the article to determine likely notability here. A quick Google search found these on just the first two pages: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. --Michig (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may have got this one wrong, perhaps i should have considered simply redirecting this article until such time as it can be improved with regard to reliable sources.Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough coverage exists to satisfy notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Miller (musician)[edit]

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

Nothing that indicates notability, terrible sources used like wordpress, facebook, myspace. The page largely consists of an unsourced discography. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, it may/may not have been a mistake of mine to nominate this article, but since im no longer fully for the nomination, it should be probably be withdraw. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article such as The Fader, Pitchfork, Acclaim, Mass Appeal, Pigeons and Planes, Fact magazine and others so passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) and also WP:GNG. There are also some unreliable sources in the article that need replacing but to ignore the good sources is not helpful, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right and that i was perhaps too hasty to delete this one. (Some of those mentions weren't particularly significant, but there's enough to demonstrate notability on the whole). I'll withdraw the nomination in a moment. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn without any delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hak (musician)[edit]

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

No notability, lack of reliable sources and citiations, and an article for the group ratking already exists Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. For reasons mentioned below. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Ratking (group). As a member of a clearly notable group, with coverage also for his subsequent solo career, inclusion is merited somewhere. Coverage includes: [32], [33], [34], [35]. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[outlook-1] "पद्मश्री डॉ. विजय प्रकाश सिंह". outlookhindi.com. No. PadmaShree Dr Vijay Prakash Singh. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[2] "Outlook Icons of Bihar : Outlook Hindi". https://www.outlookhindi.com/. Retrieved 4 December 2019. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)

[TNN-3] Bhatia, Banjot Kaur (9 August 2014). "17 lakh Hepatitis C patients in Bihar | Patna News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. Retrieved 29 November 2019.

[4] "City round-up". telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[5] "Dr. Vijay Prakash". BInvolved. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[6] "Dr Vijay Prakash". NASH24x7. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[Medical_Council_of_India-7] "Medical Council of India". Medical Council of India. 2015. Archived from the original on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

[8] ttps://medicaldialogues.in/sir-ganga-ram-hospital-nephrologist-dr-ak-bhalla-conferred-with-dr-bc-roy-award/

[9] ttps://www.medicaid.gov/state-overviews/puerto-rico.html

[10] ttps://www.dcreport.org/2019/06/11/puerto-ricos-post-maria-medicaid-crisis/

[11] ttp://www.salud.gov.pr/Estadisticas-Registros-y-Publicaciones/Publicaciones/Estudio%20oferta%20y%20demanda%20prof%20alameda-FINAL%20feb%2014%202014%20Demand%20and%20Supply%20of%20Physicians%20in%20Puerto.pdf#search=la%20reforma ^{[bare URL PDF]}

[12] ttps://www.elnuevodia.com/english/english/nota/misaludislookingforpartners-2397353/

[13] ttp://www.salud.gov.pr/Servicios-al-Ciudadano/Pages/Programa-de-Asistencia-Medica-Tarjeta-de-Salud.aspx

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]