Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Swerten[edit]

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

Played very limited game time to be eligible via WP:GNG with only three references for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 68 minutes of play (two apps) in a WP:FPL (Belgian 2nd division only fully-pro from 2016-17), no evidence he meets GNG. Giant Snowman 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less than an hour of play in not even the top national league is not a sign of notability by any reasonable measure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time per GNG. ~riley (talk) 23:38, 14 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) 23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Máté Szolga[edit]

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

Despite playing a single game of football which would be eligible for WP:NFOOTY, I struggle to find any references that would have this player pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comprehensive GNG failure, more important than one appearance half-a-decade ago. Giant Snowman 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This and other sources confirm that he only played the one game, then for amateur teams, currently a Dutch team. Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is based on data from a statistical source only and fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time per GNG. ~riley (talk) 23:38, 14 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 Snow keep. However, there's no prejudice against Aymatth2 renominating this with a proper rationale. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

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

Self-referential meta nonsense page. Jtrainor (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely useful page and the nominator has not provided any proper rationale. Mccapra (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a list of lists of lists, and even if it could be seen as "meta nonsense", that isn't a reason to delete it. This list has also survived 5 deletion discussions: the first, way back in 2012, was withdrawn [1]. The other 4 deletion discussions ended in keeps, the most recent being a snow keep in August 2017 [2]. This list meets the purposes of lists. The list itself has also been mentioned by multiple media organizations. Clovermoss (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last 5 times this was nominated. – Anne drew 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prohibit future noms. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - see previous 5 failed noms. [Belinrahs|^talk⁄ _edits] 04:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not clear what value this article provides compared to Category:Lists of lists. Both are organized by subject area (although they do not have the same breakdown). The article has about 700 lists of lists while the category has just over 1,100. Most lists are not in any list of lists, so neither this article nor the category would help a general reader. They might be useful to an editor who is starting a new list of lists and wants to see how similar lists of lists have been structured. But why do we need both this article and the category? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUPE covers this pretty well; basically, categories and lists may cover the same topic but they aren't considered unnecessary duplicates because both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. [Belinrahs|^talk⁄ _edits] 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary list articles can provide additional information, structure, sources and so on compared to a category. For lists of lists the value is less obvious, particularly when the list of lists simply duplicates the category in the same alphabetical sequence, with no additional information. This is discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Purpose. For this article, at yet another level of abstraction, I struggle to see any value that is not provided by Category:Lists of lists. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the norm had not been (for years, and even on other projects such as Wikia, as was already mentioned above, as a reply to your previous comment, and before you made this comment) to provide both categories and list articles, there would still be only 48 articles in that category and hundreds in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists has 707 entries. Category:lists of lists has 1,113 entries, including sub-categories. See this scan. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as it contradicts WP:NOTDUPE's "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided", it is Lists of Lists#Purpose which is redundant, and should be deleted. It is an essay, while DUPE is a Guideline. NOTDUPE has a rationale: "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories", which has already been presented here, and which "Purpose" does not address, somewhat ironically given its title. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of lists do have value, as noted in "Purpose", but they are not useful if they give no more information or structure than a category. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:LISTPURP, particularly Navigation, which probably says this better than I can. I'm kind of shocked people think this page isn't useful. As a reader I've frequently used this page for navigating on subject matters I'm not familiar with. I've particularly found it's useful for identifying things like specific films whose names I can't remember, but have used it many times to read up on other subjects that I don't know very much about and would otherwise have difficulty researching in. It's hard to search for lists of lists if you're not sure if the list you're looking for exists. Darthkayak (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darthkayak:. You may find Category:Lists of film lists more up-to-date than List of lists of lists#Performing arts. Compare List of Araneidae species to List of Cyatholipidae species. The first is a list of lists and is in Category:Lists of species lists (but not in List of lists of lists#Biology). The second is not a list of lists. A reader looking for members of a spider family is unlikely to find it in the category or the list article. Both only give access to a very small subset of lists, and an even smaller subset of articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: Ah thanks! I'll definitely start using Category:Lists of film lists when I have trouble identifying films. That said, my point is less about the current state of the article, which I think is not up to date, and more about the potential value of the article for casual navigation - I am certain there are readers who have used it for similar purposes as I have, but for whom it wouldn't occur to look further into the category pages. Darthkayak (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not that List of lists of lists is out of date and incomplete, but that even if it were a perfect match to Category:Lists of lists, and even if that category were fully populated, it would still lead to a very arbitrary subset. Most articles are not in lists, and most lists are not in lists of lists. A reader who tries to locate an article through the lists-of-lists tree is very unlikely to find it. c (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke McNally[edit]

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

The player currently fails WP:NFOOTY as the Irish leagues are not professional and looking through the references they seem to be all match reports and transfers which are basically WP:ROUTINE. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Given his age and potential, I think it would be worth retaining a draft but, as things stand, he does fail NFOOTY and is nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time per GNG. Draftify is worth considering per above. ~riley (talk) 23:39, 14 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. @Stuartyeates: You may consider the move to Barazamba case by using Template:requested move. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

François Bazaramba[edit]

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

This BLP accuses its subject of genocide. The claim is sourced to an article in a language I don't speak, and I'm unable to evaluate its reliability. I feel that if the source is reliable then Mr Barazamba is probably notable and the article is probably appropriate, but if not then I think it should be summarily deleted. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 1st source is Yle, which looks pretty reputable at a glance. Google Translate works reasonably well on it. A site search of yle yields also this source and some others in English. Between the article and the (Gtranslated) source, it's my best understanding that the the case is of legal interest because they didn't accuse him of murdering anyone himself, but of inciting others to genocide. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could I direct your attention to Machine translation#Major issues, please? All the best—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd asked whether the article was potentially libelous. The machine translation adequately supports a "no" answer, in my experienced opinion (I work in a country where I don't know the language well, and use GT frequently). I also gave you a source written in English from the same news organization, and a search link to find more. I end with reasons (partly speculative) of why the Finnish language source might (or might not) be preferable to that in English. I'm not sure I understand what your concern is here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This BBC News item summarises the same material as the article. However I wonder if this is more notable as a case article than as an individual biography? AllyD (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. There's notability here but I agree that a case article feels preferable to a biography. I'd be a little less uncomfortable about the allegation of genocide if there was a reliable source for the outcome of the appeal.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a detailed timeline of the charges through to rejected appeals to the Appeal Court and Supreme Court, both in 2012 ("Trial International") and a 2019 Rwanda newspaper item about a rejected bid for early release ([3]). AllyD (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, shouldn't the state news of Finland (a country e.g. given a 100/100 rating from Freedom House) be reliable, at least for events in Finland and their significance in Finnish law? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that Yle is highly reliable; but in my view a machine translation of Yle is unreliable.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yle has some articles also in English (as well as in Finnish and Swedish; they have news portals in all 3 languages). Unfortunately, the most comprehensive article (speaking to the legal significance) seems to only be in Finnish, but I added an English-language article concerning the final denial of his appeal to the article. Perhaps you assumed that yle articles would all be in Finnish? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did mistakenly presume they'd publish in Finnish or Swedish, yes. It remains to resolve whether this should be a case article as Ally suggests.—S Marshall T/C 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Barazamba case or whatever legal cases are called in this jurisdiction, since the coverage is about the legal case and the legal precident, not the actual person. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as the libel concerns of the nominator have been met. I agree that the move (with redirect) is a sensible idea. Would the article talk page be a better place to discuss it? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for his abuses as well as the landmark Finnish trial, which could arguably have its own article as well. For now, this will suffice. I added more info about the crimes - in trying to not violate BLP, there was nothing about what he was convicted of. I think the info is presented fairly as reported by the BBC. I also clarified in the lede why the case was groundbreaking. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red King (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Planet Hulk. BOZ (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone knowledgeable enough to search for this character can find Planet Hulk without our help. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough, do not see value in merging. ~riley (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Imperial Dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no RS to support it is a breed. Despite what the article says this "breed" does not appear to be recognised by any breed registry, I have searched the FCI, AKC, ANKC, CKC, KC, NZKC & UKC websites, I have also tried Chinese Kennel Union webpage but my translations could be eschew, that being said as a full member of FCI, any breed recognised by the CKU would be granted FCI recognition. I have found this Reuters story about “China's imperial dog”, but it is referring to the Pekingese. Google shows up the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every breed/crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and depends on the "Dog Breed Info Center" website for material. William Harristalk 07:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Looks like a rather small Shih Tzu to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time, fails GNG. ~riley (talk) 23:42, 14 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) 23:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Salon Dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no RS to support it is a breed. I have searched the FCI with no results and have also tried the Russian Kynological Federation webpage (to the alarm of my firewall) but my translations could be eschew, that being said, as a full member of FCI, any breed recognised by the FKF would be granted FCI recognition. Google does not even show the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" which in itself is telling. Cavalryman (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an advertorial for the Bona Bell Kennel. William Harristalk 07:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time, fails GNG. ~riley (talk) 23:42, 14 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 Zodiac (comics). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn (comics)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty much just like my argument at the AFD for their teammate, none of the iterations of this character have any kind of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that allow it to pass the WP:GNG. And as the team they belonged to all appears to fail the WP:GNG, i don't recommend merging or redirecting there, either. Rorshacma (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Zodiac (comics). BOZ (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zodiac (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma and WP:NOT#PLOT. No need for a mege/redirect when the merge target is prone to AfD as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If target is prone to AfD, do the AfD. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable. Andrew Base (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Arentowicz[edit]

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

While he does appear in several specialized databases, they are simply chronicles, not true in-depth coverage, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG. And his closest claim to passing WP:NSOLDIER is his command of the 303rd squadron, but squadron commanders don't make it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arentowicz does not come close to meeting WP:SOLDIER in terms of commands held or awards received. He did not live long anough to meet WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 303 Squadron RAF and delink all links to the page: this website lists mentions of the subject in various Polish books. Not sure I'd call any of them substantive though. Other than a page in a different book (Olgierd Cumft, Hubert Kazimierz Kujawa: Księga lotników polskich: poległych, zmarłych i zaginionych 1939-1946. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo MON, 1989, s. 193. ISBN 83-11-07329-5.) plwiki article only cites a database entry. I'm not seeing the coverage necessary for GNG. b uidhe 02:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears in books and foreign language like this extensive Biography of him. I imagine there is more available in foreign language.

With Great Sacrifice and Bravery: The Career of Polish Ace Waclaw Lapkowski
Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night
Polish Aces of World War 2
THE POLISH AIR FORCE IN BRITAIN, 1940-1947 Wm335td (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Extensive biography of him" is the website that I linked to, which has no more than a short paragraph quoted from each source. Other sources are:

1: a few brief mentions and what appears to be a short section. I cannot see how long it is because preview cuts off, but it seems likely not to meet sigcov and starts with "Little is known of the career of Arentowicz."

2: a few brief mentions, nothing resembling sigcov

3: one brief mention

4: A photograph in which Arentowicz appears [4] b uidhe 22:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments, and your work here. I think we will need to investigate foreign language sources. In any event my opinion is that we should not WP:RUSH to delete and we should look for ways to WP:ATD. Wm335td (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what alternative there would be. He is unlikely to belong on a list like List of Polish fighter pilots of World War II (even if such a list existed) because of WP:LSC. b uidhe 22:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought it would be reasonable to redirect to 303 Squadron presuming that all the links were removed. b uidhe 23:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/merge per Buidhe's targeet. My first choice is to keep - I think we have enough for GNG, I did some checking myself and found a few non-trivial references. Air Crew Remembered, Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night The table of contents claims he appears on Pages 191, 194, 213, 214, 248, 269. This source: Based on: Olgierd Cumft, Hubert Kujawa - Book of Polish pilots , Warsaw 1989, MON. I think anyone with this many appearances in books is notable (appearing in a Polish Ace book). Some books I cannot read as they are in Polish. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a large number of mentions in sources doesn't make a subject notable unless the coverage meets the requirements (reliable source and in-depth). Likewise, mentions (even multiple mentions in the same source) are not significant coverage. What makes the volunteer outfit "Air Crew Remembered", or the other website, a reliable source? So far, no one has been able to find a single source which is reliable and has significant coverage. b uidhe 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG Sowa, Aneta. "ARENTOWICZ Tadeusz Aleksander". Biblioteka Główna (in Polish). Lotnicza Akademia Wojskowa. Retrieved 10 December 2019. Extensive in depth article in WP:RS. And Gretzyngier, Robert; Matusiak, Wojtek (August 23, 2002). Poles in Defence of Britain: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Polish Day and Night Fighter Pilot Operations: July 1940–June 1941. London: Grub Street Publishers. pp. 191, 194, 213–214, 248, 269. ISBN 1902304543. ISBN 9781909166271. The little-known WWII story of the Polish Air Force fliers who played a crucial role in the Battle of Britain and beyond. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with No. 303 Squadron RAF nothing I have seen tells me he is any more notable than any other pilot in the RAF.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 7&6 and WP:OFFLINE. ——SN 54129 14:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Nothing notable at all in this bio. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 303 Squadron RAF. I came here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Tadeusz Arentowicz up for deletion where it was posted. Sadly, this man was one of many brave men and women who gave up their life fighting for freedom in the war. Sources name him in passing, not reason to believe that significant additional offline sources here exist as the subject of Polish aviators is extensively written on, and in Polish mostly after communism ended. MozeTak (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 303 Squadron RAF. While he is mentioned in passing by a few reliable sources, the following statement may be indicative of his notability: "Little is known of the career of Arentowicz." [5] De728631 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would simply note that the ample sourcing of this article. which relates to WP:GNG, documents that he was more noted (at least in Wikipedia sources) than both Zdzisław Henneberg and Wacław Łapkowski, who were his two immediate predecessors in the identical position. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of why the stuff really is not a good argument to use at an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With no kills he doesn't qualify for any consideration of being a fighter ace. But he may pass GNG. That single webpage is reliable, as it is hosted by the Polish Air Force University). [6] notes that he commanded the entire 303 Fighter Squadron for about a month following the death of Zdzisław Henneberg and while it is only a mention in passing, he has a dedicated entry on pages 14-15 of Józef Zieliński; Tadeusz Krzystek (2002). Commanders of the Polish Air Force Squadrons in the West. Redakcja Czasopism WLOP. ISBN 978-83-909008-9-6.. Then there is a paragraph in Glenn Knoblock (May 2004). With Great Sacrifice and Bravery: The Career of Polish Ace Waclaw Lapkowski, 1939-41: Illustrated with Official RAF Combat Reports. Merriam Press. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-1-57638-330-8.. That's WP:THREE. The third source is borderline (paragraph), but frankly I also suspect there is more coverage in Polish sources that are just not digitized and not easily searchable through GBooks; for example pl wiki cites Olgierd Cumft (1989). Księga lotników polskich, poległych, zmarłych i zaginionych, 1939-1946. Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej. p. 193. ISBN 978-83-11-07329-6. and snippet view in Google prevents me from confirming whether it is a page-long entry or three sentences :/ Still, I think there's enough here that while initially I was going to vote for redirect I am going with 'weak keep' instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dywizjon 303 "The squadron was the subject of the 1942 book "Dywizjon 303" (Squadron 303), written by the well-known Polish writer Arkady Fiedler, which is considered the most famous and popular among this writer's many works and has sold over 1.5 million copies." All the names in that book were pseudononymous due to war time security concerns for the pilots and their families.

"Because the book was published during the war, in order to protect the Polish airmen and their families remaining in occupied Poland from German reprisals, Fiedler used pseudonyms for the airmen of 303 Squadron. This practice was mandated in a memoregarding confidential information issued by the Air Ministry dated Oct. 14, 1949.[33] In connection with the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain in 2010, a new English translation was commissioned by publisher Aquila Polonica at the request of Fiedler’s son. 303 Squadron: The Legendary Battle of Britain Fighter Squadron is the first new English-language edition of Dywizjon 303 since 1942, and for the first time in English identifies the pilots by their true names." "No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron" (PDF). p. 9.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on sources found and mentioned in this AFD. Dream Focus 16:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was initially leaning towards a redirect until I got to Piotrus' comments, these have persuaded me that this could be kept. Zawed (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough on him to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems enough detail available on him to justify an article. On the point about his command being only a squadron, I understand that generally one would regard this size of unit as relatively insignificant, in the special circumstances of the Battle of Britain the general rule might not best reflect reality. FrankP (talk) 11:38, 15 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. No consensus to delete; sources provided that demonstrate subject does meet GNG went unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Odokara-Okigbo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. TM 21:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. TM 21:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in cited sources: [7], [8], [9] ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has signiicant coverage in reliable sources as shown above and others in the article so passes WP:GNG and there is no need for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edde Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable former video company. While notability is not lost by the company having been defunct for 20 years, I can't seem to find anything that indicates this company ever passed WP:GNG. Appears to have gained most of what notability it did have from a lawsuit, which isn't enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Article has four sources: a reference to the lawsuit in a book (however, the mention seems to be about the case, rather than the company), a link to MySpace (not RS), a dead link to a library catalog listing of one of Edde's products, and a routine listing stating that the company had been registered as a corporation in the '80s and '90s. Nothing here to pass the general or subject specific notability tests. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 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 moved to draft by the page creator, User:Fros7bite. This was a pretty questionable thing to do, and I don't think it would be out of bounds to close this AfD as delete and delete the draft page. That said, the current state is basically the same as if the move didn't happen, the article was deleted, and the creator asked for it to be restored as a draft. I would allow that in this case, so I'm going to accept the fait accompli and leave the draft. But I'm also giving fair warning that if it gets moved back to main space without substantial improvement, it's going to be considered shenanigans and could lead to salting of the article name. RL0919 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echelon International[edit]

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

Group is not notable, a single mention in the news is not notability. Charlie.gao (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing, if any, the one random source I checked ([10]) used as a source doesn't even mention them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move. I've moved the article to Draft, as there are a few more newsworthy events that Echelon International was involved in that are more notable than what the page indicates. Fros7bite —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lordtobi (✉) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article's author quickly moved the page to draftspace, tried to clear this AfD, and delisted the AfD from deletion sortings. I have reverted the latter. Lordtobi (✉) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(disclaimer: saw the AfD because the main page was deleted by AfD not closed) Delete as a non-notable topic. None of the sources in the article pass WP:GNG as reliable independent and in-depth. In fact, most don't even mention the subject. The author seems to have a strong investment in this up to trying to bypass the AfD, so I don't believe there is good faith in keeping it as a draft and spending more reviewer time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fros7bite is the founder of Echelon Interactive and wrote the article. Feels like an attempt to advertise themselves.
The article itself is poorly sourced - member count is taken from primary source that isn't even reliable (you do not have to be active with a unit to get in their unit page) and self-published LinkedIn where players are apparently employees, other source is a podcast with Fros7bite himself as a guest, relevant to one event and finally an article about Arma 3's game mode.
Furthermore they're stating they're partnered with Bohemia Interactive (unlikely and not sourced), Discord (unlikely and not sourced) and Radio Arma (I know the host, he confirmed they're not partnered, only one-off interview).
Their website is currently down, possibly because Fros7bite here had an amazing idea of threatening legal action against RHS, well established modding group that actually has a legal counsel, while himself being accused of reverse-engineering their and others' mods, Arma 3 and using models from these in his own mods.
Actually trying to look them up results in a groupon for shooting range (laser? airsoft?) in Canada and their Patreon. ThePointForward / talk 12:50, 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 redirect to Antz#Video games. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antz World Sportz[edit]

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

I could only find unreliable sources (see WP:VG/S) that do not satisfy WP:GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to the Antz page, as it’s a plausible search term. Honestly, this doesn’t need to be at AFD, it could have just been restored back into the redirect it was for most of its existence these last 5 years. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antz#Video games as WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 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 WP:SNOW delete and salt. BD2412 T 15:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mandl[edit]

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

US Investment Banker whose BLP was created by an WP:SPA, and had a WP:PROMO element (some of which I have edited out). The only RS for GNG that I could find on the subject were short notifications in the media when he changed jobs (which he has done a few times). He has appeared on Bloomberg to give views, but I don't think that is GNG. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV piece on him. Ultimately, I feel his WP BLP would be the central part of his media notability, but it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would appreciate you reconsidering this recommendations -- your edits improved the page and we appreciate that. but we would appreciate if it was not deleted. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.46.75.3 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you are also the SPA Officer Deckard, who has solely been making edits on Wikipedia regarding Eric Mandl on various articles? Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Voting for deletion, as the subject has not accrued sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO; they seem to be a run-of-the-mill businessperson. WP:SIGCOV mandates coverage be independent and in-depth, and while the subject is named in many press releases, they themselves have not accrued significant coverage when separated from more notable entities (WP:NOTINHERITED) they are affiliated with; indeed, most mentions of the subject in the sources cited only run for a sentence or two, and some citations failed to mention the subject at all. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note this was rejected multiple times at Draft and then pushed to mainspace to bypass AFC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We may need WP:SALTing. An IP blanked the article since the AfD was started [11] (plus the unusual comment above by another IP). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has been histmerged to this one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet more executive Linkedin. The Business Insider article is borderline but there aren't any other secondary sources that give significant coverage on his career. The rest are just news announcements / press releases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on what's in the article right now, he appears to be a run of the mill business person. There's only a single reliable print source actually about him in the article, which is just about him getting a new job. It's the exact same incident in the Times. That's not significant coverage. At best, this is a case of a single event. At worst, an SPA has written this as an ad. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echoing Britishfinance, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in RS & article creator has attempted to “game the system” severally now. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably SALT as well given the attempt to circumvent AfC. Clearly a promotional article about an non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:37, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat Ali Khan[edit]

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

DAB page previously contained 2 people with different names to the article title, only remaining entry is the non-notable father of another person. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise that after removing the non-matching names that I should have turned this page into a redirect (and then requested it's deletion?), though I now can't find the page which states this. Spike 'em (talk) 10:13, 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) 21:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EFounders[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable small company, coverage does not satisfy WP:NCORP. News results consist almost entirely of press-releases, many of them on TechCrunch. Scale of the business is small – according to the source in the page, the investment in Mailjet was €180000, which in Paris might just be enough to buy you a one-room "studio" flat.

Notes: this is neither the company started by Dean Gardner and Bashir Wada some twenty-odd years ago, nor the Alibaba training programme of the same name; it's also blatant undisclosed paid editing from the outset. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time per GNG. ~riley (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. Fox Walker[edit]

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

Mentioned in some sources, but has not gotten any significant attention. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time and as the cinematographer has passed, they likely will not be notable at a later time. ~riley (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not finding any more than a few credits in film listings. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 15 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) 21:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gambo (carcass)[edit]

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

Subject has received coverage in fringe sources only; there are no reliable sources available to meet GNG or support a balanced article. Previous AfD failed to actually evaluate the sources present at the time. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Participants in the 2018 AfD do not appear to have actually evaluated the sources present at that time. Comments such as "AGF for the in-print sources" and "without checking the pages of each cited book there is no reason to believe they are insignificant" indicate that the sources were not actually checked for reliability and simply assumed to be sufficient. Here are the sources present in 2018:[reply]

There are Giants in the Sea. Bright, Michael. Robson Books, London, 1989.
In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Shuker, Karl P.N. Blandford, London, 1995.
The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep. Coleman, Loren and Huyghe, Patrick. Jeremy P. Tarcher Publishing. November, 2003

All three books are written from a fringe cryptozoological perspective, promoting theories that the carcass was an unknown species of whale or a surviving plesiosaur. Per WP:NFRINGE, the "proclamations of its adherents" cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject. In this case, there appears to be little to no mainstream coverage, therefore it fails GNG. The two external links [12] [13] share the same fringe POV as the books. –dlthewave ☎ 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filleting the article immediately before AfD (see this version) is a sheer bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD. This appears to be one of several. ANI to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo which should have been listed here. AfD by the same nominator a year ago, closed as keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing the previous AfD. Twinkle normally lists previous discussions automatically, but apparently the recent page move interfered. –dlthewave ☎ 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have checked that it was here before leaving the AfD. After all, it was your nomination – we can't believe you don't remember trying to delete it before. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its also found in Gambo: The Beaked Beast of Bungalow Beach," Fortean Times (No. 67, Feb.-March 1993), pp. 35-37. So enough sources to justify its existence in the previous form. I agree its wrong to erase the article, reducing it to just one sentence then sending it to AFD. It should've been nominated in its original state. Dream Focus 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortean Times is a fringe publication and cannot be used to establish notability. Have you found any sources that could be used to write an article based on a mainstream scientific viewpoint? –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't much matter what's used as a source, if the nominator strips them all out right before the AfD anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete keep as per the above, previous afd and comments, bit of a car crash nomination tbh. Update, there is nothing left to support now. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govindaharihari Which specific comments do you find compelling? There is not a single keep !vote in this AfD or the previous one that actually assess the quality of the print sources which I listed above; all of them either "assume good faith" that they are reliable or are based on purported procedural issues that do not concern the notability of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This cryptid appears to totally fail WP:NFRINGE. The only cite that was in the article was the Gizmodo article reviewing the book Cryptozoologicon, and that's a self-published book. Doesn't contribute to notability. Everything else listed here and that I can find searching is a fringe source; can't be used. There appears to literally not be a single reliable source upon which we can base an article. I don't think a policy-compliant version is possible. – Levivich 03:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources that have been removed are even remotely WP:RS and no source suggested in the earlier AfD or this one have any hope of reversing that. There is no way this satisfies WP:SIGCOV and the chances of it doing so in the future are remote. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gambo is also mentioned in Hidden Animals by Michael Newton. Google Books and Amazon Paisarepa (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an article with a section about Gambo in Strange Magazine #15, Spring 1995, though it's referred to as 'The Gambian Sea Serpent' there. The previous AfD also mentioned "Anon. 1997. In search of Gambo. Animals & Men 14, 11-13." and "Downes, J. 1997. Mission Impossible: the search for ‘Gambo’. Uri Geller’s Encounters 9, 50-53." from the blog of a paleozoologist who wrote about Gambo (http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/gambo-rides-again-beaked-beast-of.html). The blog post also lists several other sources (some may pertain to Gumbo, some may not) that may be worth taking a look at. Paisarepa (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Naish seems to have a book that is partly about Gambo, if the title is too be believed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure any of those are RS. – Levivich 06:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article (in German). No idea how reliable kryptozoologie-online.de is.

I'll note that it's not just nearly blanking the article immediately before the AfD that looks bad; so does removing nearly all sources just hours after the last one closed as 'keep'. Consensus (right or wrong) in that AfD was that the sources were reasonable. Nom, how did you determine the print sources were unreliable? Paisarepa (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here from ANI and did a before search. There's not a reliable source within 100km of this article, even looking at its history. (I will add removing unsourced content a day before opening an AfD isn't great optics even if it's technically acceptable.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this via ANI as well. Like the previous commenters, I don't believe the sources are suitable. The Fortean Times and a self published book just don't cut it, and I haven't been able to find anything better myself. Reyk _YO! 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources in any version of the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing resembling an actual reliable source is present anywhere in this discussion, nor in the previous version of the article linked to by Andy Dingley. Andy's attacks on the good faith of the nominator are as unwelcome as his determination to keep poor quality content referenced to poor quality sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not reliably sourced. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient sources to even smerge. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteWhilst I find the removing of the only source then AFDing dodgy the source was poor.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the books/sites were reliable - which is doubtful - since there was never any evidence of the carcass, all they can do is speculate. Effectively, let's face it, this is an article based on one person's testimony and a few fringe sources repeating it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewing the sources that were there, AND going a good-faith search for other sources, I can't say that there is enough material to support an article. --Jayron 32 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article honestly resembles a hoax or a cryptozoologist prank rather than a genuine attempt at scientific rigor. If there were reliable sources talking about this I would say 'keep' but there aren't. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen Eberhart, George M. Gambo. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help) mentioned yet.—eric 21:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Eberhart looks reliable in this case. There is significant coverage in at least one reliable independent source, but it's not a secondary source, it's a catalogue of about a thousand of these beasties. Considering WP:NOTPAPER and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is there enough for an article. This isn't addressed above.—eric 23:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoologists such as Eberhart are not reliable sources; Mysterious Creatures credulously repeats the fringe theory that the carcass may have been a surviving plesiosaur. Since this is the only type of source available, how would one go about writing an NPOV article? –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bio in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series[14] a review in New Scientist[15](preview, and not a very trustworthy publication itself), and blurb in Skeptical Inquirer[16] which probably sums things up fairly accurately: entries are fairly objective, and list the best explanations for the sightings. The criteria for inclusion as a "mysterious creature" are perhaps too liberal. Google Scholar: eberhart "mysterious creatures" to pick through citations. Every source has caveats and limitations, but as a catalogue and bibliography looks usable.—eric 07:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or if you absolutely must, redirect to globster; then do the same with most or all of the other globster articles that read in essence "a whale carcase washed up on the beach; it turned out to be a whale carcase". NB it's not a "cryptid", it's a dead whale. Here's a question, though: is more precious editor time and energy wasted on dealing with cryptozoology, or with cryptocurrency? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether by feeding to known whales or to hyenas or otherwise. Not even enough information in the stub to be encyclopedic even if notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, Previously well-fleshed article, now just a ~~stub~~ carcass .--Auric talk 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Came here from ANI, as I guess did probably many of the others) Delete and salt and trout Andy Dingley for questioning the good faith of someone removing crap like this obviously bogus citation (taking a piece of tongue-in-cheek satire as a source for a factual claim) before nominating. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete corpses possess neither inherent not inherited notability, and as such need to pass GNG. This does not do so. ——SN 54129 11:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete with no prejudice against including this in a list of similar things somewhere appropriate. I hate to pile on but WP:GNG is not satisfied in current or previous versions of the article. Searching only found a handful of appropriate sources which have only isolated in-passing coverage. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Corresponding German article seems pretty decent to me with RS.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German article was translated from the English article in 2006. All of the sources are fringe (Bright, Coleman, Shuker discussed above; Strange Magazine, Fortean Times, online "Cryptid Compendiums") and are in fact the same ones that were removed from enwiki due to their unreliability. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't add much more that hasn't already been said, but I'm just not seeing notability for the term established in sources either here or at the article itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 13 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. Nomination has been withdrawn and only remaining delete !vote makes no reference to any policy. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Ouida Lee[edit]

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

Does not pass notability. What is apparent is that she lived and died... as is apparent about many if not most people in the modern era. What is not apparent is a life of relevance to an encyclopedia. This content is more appropriate for a Find a Grave memorial page. Lee appears in some local history books, but not for having done anything such as, but not limited to: working, creating art, being an activist, serving her community, being the "first" or "only" of something in her community, or being the subject of a biography for her said unique experiences. While her life would be a curiosity due to her double-minority ethnic heritage and related experiences in a time and place (moving from Australia to China and back), I see no indication that she or others wrote/published about these experiences (of racism) in depth. Her daughter named an environmental center after her, which is sweet... but surely that can't count for much. Perhaps worst of all is that, lacking other substance, this article largely tells the story of a woman's life by her relationships with men-- her father (who also has an article but whose notability I am beginning to question); her two husbands, who are described her father's reaction to them. But tone down the men, and there is even less of an article. This article is not an asset to WikiProject Women in red. The women on Wikipedia must meet notability on some merits of their own; Gloria Ouida Lee's life, if accurately reflected by this article and its sources, does not cut the mustard. Anyone with better sources for the Alice Springs area, please consider improving the article. If you disagree, PLEASE cite exactly what in notability she meets. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely living and migrating internationally does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of the article passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She is represented in the permanent archive collection of the Women's Museum of Australia, formerly known as the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame. I also added a citation to the book, The Outsiders In: Telling Australia's Indigenous-Asian Story, when I searched for a variation on her name that included her maiden name, Gloria Hong Lee. One would imagine there are other citations out there with a thorough search of all variations of her name. Those two added items, in addition to the existing citations are enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Netherzone, but can I just point to the nominator's "Lee appears in some local history books..." which does seem to suggest GNG is met. GNG should not be dismissed merely because the nominator is not impressed that, I dunno, she didn't do a 4-minute mile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator will point out that the article at the time of nomination had three books, two newspaper articles, and one website as sources. Regarding those books: the nominator has done some checking. The book by Jose Petrick, which the nominator has viewed, is perhaps a secondary source but as a more encyclopedic book about the town is more like a tertiary source. The portion that the nominator has viewed does not cite sources. It reads almost as a vanity book; the nominator can elaborate on its tone and content if you like. The book Through Chinese eyes : the Chinese experience in the Northern Territory 1874-2004, is described as a "personal narrative" and thus appears to be a primary source rather than a secondary source as the GNG calls for. Those two books are self-published: the author's name is the publisher. Self-published local history books can be high-quality sources of information, but they can also be less than that. Alice Springs : from singing wire to iconic outback town, published by Wakefield Press, may be the best reliable secondary source of the bunch. Finally, the nominator points out that the word "appears" does not convey the level of coverage as "is featured" or "is detailed"... passing mentions are appearances. Many of our ancestors appear in newspaper articles, history books, ship manifests, war records, etc. and most are not worthy of biographical articles. The nominator, actually interested in the life story of the subject, does not require a feat of physical fitness to prove worthiness; the nominator confesses to looking for verbs, nouns, and adjectives in assessing articles. The nominator looked for but did not find a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story here, but hopes to see more improvements to the article as the discussion continues. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still appear to believe that, to be notable, an article must convince you that the subject has accomplished something of significance ("a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story"), and not merely been covered in sources that are sufficiently reliable, in-depth, and independent. Can you perhaps point to where in our guidelines or policy that opinion is based? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that significant accomplishments are it. The "notable-enough" comment refers to that notability is only presumed when the GNG is met, and that further discussion may take place ("A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article"). WP:DIRECTORY was one concern when I nominated the article. And I had called the sources into question, as I did not find enough of them to be secondary and sufficiently in-depth, as I outlined above. The article is already much improved with more sources. Good. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a new section called Sources, with three Google Books that have multiple pages on Gloria Lee, one of which has a chapter on her. Because one can only see part of the multiple pages, they have not been added them to the References section. If there is a better name for the section than Sources, please feel free to change it, but do keep the books in the article. Her life is well documented. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not use any of them as sources in your writing? If you did not, I believe the correct name for the section is "Further reading." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 - It seems a proper WP:BEFORE may not have been conducted before nominating the page for deletion. She clearly meets notability, there are many verifiable reliable sources that were not difficult to find. When searching for women, it's advisable to search under variations of her name, esp. if she has several last names due to marriages or other name changes, as in this case. The article simply needed improvement not deletion. Also, please sign your nomination, and it is ~~policy~~ suggested to inform the original page creator with a notice on their talk page. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, Thank you for conducting this research. It now appears that the subject meets notability. Mightn't you consider that we don't all have the same access to or knowledge of the same resources? I found little--not enough to dissuade the nomination--when I researched her under the names listed at the time. You just may have access to or know about different places to find information than I. You did a good job, and work like yours is why this process works so well in getting articles to swim or sink. But this is moot now. The subject's notability is established and she is better written up as an individual beyond her roles of daughter, wife, mother, and extended family member. I thank you. Pardon me for failing to sign my nomination. I have amended it now. One more thing: You are incorrect that it is policy to inform the original page creator. It is, rather, an optional courtesy. Perhaps you have it confused the policy with that of proposed deletion. See you around. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in light of new information, sources, and editing. See comments above. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless John Pack Lambert also wants to change his opinion, I think we need to let the AfD carry on to its conclusion: an early close based on a withdrawal is only possible when there are no other delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, especially now with all the improvements made and sources added (thanks Netherzone:)), article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Although some WP:GNG notability was visible even in the nominated version, I think it is much more clear now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Nice article. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK criterion #1: nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 18:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias against Bernie Sanders[edit]

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

An entire page is not needed for this topic. Overall, this page heavily generalizes the U.S. media, and does not take into account that Bernie Sanders has been involved in far less important political matters than some of the other candidates. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump have also been criticized a lot, yet they don't have corresponding pages of this type. See Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders#Response_to_criticisms as proof that the bias isn't as extreme as many make it out to be. Ylevental (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion I misread the rules. WP:DPAFD explains that there shouldn't be another discussion right away. Ylevental (talk) 18:24, 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 keep. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pósa theorem[edit]

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

I attempted to redirect but it's since been contested. This is not an individually notable topic and per WP:AVOIDSPLIT should be deleted, redirected and merged into Hamiltonian path. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is badly written but I think the topic is independently notable, as evidenced by papers with it in the title doi:10.1007/BFb0060117 doi:10.1016/j.disc.2011.02.023 or in the abstract doi:10.1016/j.endm.2009.07.057, a MathWorld page on it [17], book coverage that calls it "almost certainly a major contributory cause of various subsequent developments [18], still-unsolved conjectures labeled as "Pósa-type" doi:10.1016/j.jctb.2016.01.007, etc. I think these sources provide enough material to expand the article to significantly more than just the single bullet line that would be appropriate for its mention in the parent article. I suspect that the article title should be "Pósa's theorem" rather than "Pósa theorem" and that more sources would be evident when searching that term than when searching the current title (which leads to many false positives). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably rename per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG it has "Significant coverage" the topic is discussed directly and in detail by numerous academic sources as explained and referenced above, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The fact that it is not the main topic of much of the source material is unimportant because the mentions and discussions are far from trivial. Search variations do uncover more sources than the links at top for the current page name and a move discussion needs to occur for this page. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 13 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 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron League[edit]

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

Fictional organisation. No evidence of real-world notability, no secondary sources cited. The article has been tagged as being in-universe and having sourcing problems since 2013. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at this point in time per GNG. ~riley (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:41, 15 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. Tone 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian famine of 1942–1943[edit]

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

Unreal subject. Personasiran (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it clear what the nominator means. If the subject is ‘unreal’ why would we merge it to anything. If it’s real why not keep it? Mccapra (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale. Along with the sources cited in the article, there's this. b uidhe 04:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please check Persian famine of 1917–1919 and Persian famine of 1870–1872. These two are real famines and have been mentioned in many sources, But Iranian famine of 1942–1943.. this is not a real famine. It is only briefly mentioned in a few sources. Also this sources confirmed that only some foods were scarce, not most! If you want to keep this article, then you have to write thousands of other similar articles for Germany, Iran, the Netherlands, the US and the whole world. Please give an expert opinion. This event is not called famine.Personasiran (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be sufficient sources for the mentioned article, particularly (based on my research in Persian language sites) I found considerable numbers of related-sites to support the issue. And the event doesn't seem to be a normal problem to be forgotten/ignored easily; and it actually deserves to have an independent page. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT. Nominator fails to provide a valid rationale while there are many sources, like this by one of leading experts on famine, Cormac Ó Gráda. Pahlevun (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its based on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability Personasiran (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's POV. Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real event, stub is now better. Bearian (talk)
Delete due to lacking independent sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real event. The article still needs some improvements and more details.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one historical event in Iran and it is good to be kept. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Lightburst and User:Pahlevun. Benyamin-ln (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a real event. Does not meet speedy keep criteria on the grounds of "fails to advance any argument for deletion" per nominator's follow up vote of oppose above. ~riley (talk) 00:07, 15 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 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Hart[edit]

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

Fictional chivalric order. No evidence of real-world notability, and no secondary sources cited. It has been tagged as light on citations and too in-universe since 2013. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a completely non-notable fictional organization. I'm not finding any kind of coverage in reliable, secondary source at all that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. As the content of this article is entirely in-universe plot information sourced only to a single, primary source, there is nothing here worth preserving or merging anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on a fan wiki. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not finding any reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and belongs on Wikia. ~riley (talk) 00:08, 15 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 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom[edit]

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

Fictional chivalric order. No evidence of real-world notability; article has been tagged as being written in an in-universe style for over a decade. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fictional organization. Searching for sources brings up nothing in reliable, secondary sources, meaning it fails the WP:GNG. There is only in-universe plot information here, that is only sourced to primary sources, so there is nothing here that needs to be merged or preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and belongs on Wikia. ~riley (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that despite verifiable mentions of the company that is not coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the company in significant detail. As such it is not notable according to our guidelines for companies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiff's Treats[edit]

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

This does not meet current standards for notability -- see WP:NCORP. Most of the refs. are local stories about funding, the others are very local promotional writeups ot pure pR sites like local business journals DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Wyman, Caroline (2014). The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes & Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake Pie. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-1-58157-162-2. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Esquivel, Crystal (2011). Food Lovers' Guide to® Austin: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants & Events. Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-0-7627-7027-4. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Shine, Conor (2017-11-15). "Tiff's Treats cooks up $25 million in investment to deliver warm cookies to more places: After opening its first stores in Austin in 2003 and in Dallas in 2006, the company is in the midst of a major growth spurt that has seen its ambitions grow beyond the confines of Texas". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-15. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Oyler, Melissa (2019-08-24). "Tiff's Treats line forms overnight for warm cookies and Brooklyn Decker, Andy Roddick". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
Knight, Drew (2019-07-28). "Tiff's Treats opening first location in San Marcos". KVUE. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Grattan, Robert (2013-11-06). "Tiff's Treats' secret ingredient: Getting politicians hooked on cookies". Austin Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Dinges, Gary (2018-02-26). "Tiff's Treats expands to new state, acquires competing chain". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-19. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
McCann, Matt (2014-01-14). "Tiffany & Leon Want to Bake You Some Cookies: Tiff's Treats owners offer bargains to celebrate 15 years in business". The Austin Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Mawajdeh, Hady (2016-01-14). "Tiff's Treats' Warm Cookies Are Coming to Cities Outside Texas". Texas Standard. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Porter, Kristi (2018-02-06). "Tiff's Treats: Success by the Dozen". TexasLiving. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Lynch, Lane (2012-04-12). "Tiff's Treats finally makes it to Houston". Texas Monthly. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Cadwallader, Robert (2017-07-13). "Warm-cookie delivery shop opening at Champions Park in north Arlington". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
"Tiff's Treats' Secret Recipe (For Success): The company launched 19 years ago with a pair of UT students baking in a cramped apartment. As it continues to scale up—now with 40 stores in three states—can it continue to deliver the same cookies that Austin fell in love with?". Austin Monthly. June 2018. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Alfonso III, Fernando (2017-08-01). "Tiff's Treats bakery taps University of Texas football stars for new ad". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Dinges, Gary (2017-11-16). "Just In: Tiff's Treats lands $25 million to fund continued growth". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Grisales, Claudia (2016-09-23). "An Austin institution, Tiff's Treats eyes bigger expansion". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-17. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
Brayles, Addie. (2009-01-28). "10 years of Treats: Started in college apartment, Tiff's expands its realm of delivering warm cookies" (pages 1 and 2). Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25. – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Wyman, Caroline (2014). The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes & Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake Pie. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-1-58157-162-2. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes:
Tiff's Treats, three locations (also in Houston and Dallas), www.cookiedelivery.com. Tiffany Taylor and Leon Chen started baking cookies for fellow University of Texas students out of Chen's college apartment in 1999, and now they're a married couple/Texas cookie juggernaut, delivering chocolate chip and nine other hot, gooey cookies to the general public from nine storefronts in three cities. Pickup customers can also get Tiffwiches, cookie ice cream sandwiches made with Southern favorite ice cream Blue Bell.
Esquivel, Crystal (2011). Food Lovers' Guide to® Austin: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants & Events. Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-0-7627-7027-4. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The book notes:
Tiff's Treats, 1806 Nueces St., Austin, TX 78701; (512) 473-2600; www.cookiedelivery.com. Tiff's Treats is a cookie delivery service that bakes fresh cookies to order and delivers them while still warm. Customers can order by phone or online, and fresh cookies can be delivered just about anywhere in Austin within an hour or so. Along with their chewy chocolate chip cookies, Tiff's also bakes up peanut butter, M&M, sugar, oatmeal raisin, and snickerdoodle cookies. Cookies are sold by the dozen and are popular treats for office parties and birthdays.
Shine, Conor (2017-11-15). "Tiff's Treats cooks up $25 million in investment to deliver warm cookies to more places: After opening its first stores in Austin in 2003 and in Dallas in 2006, the company is in the midst of a major growth spurt that has seen its ambitions grow beyond the confines of Texas". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-15. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Warm cookie delivery company Tiff’s Treats is bringing in more dough — this time $25 million — to help fuel its expansion across Texas and the U.S.
The Austin-based cookie company announced Wednesday it had raised $25 million in an investment round led by investment funds managed by Morgan Stanley Expansion Capital. That brings the total amount raised by Tiff’s Treats to $50 million over the past three years.
Founded in 1999 by a pair of students at the University of Texas at Austin, Tiff’s Treats delivers fresh-out-of-the-oven cookies and brownies to businesses and homes using specially designed containers that ensure the baked goods are still warm when they arrive.After opening its first stores in Austin in 2003 and in Dallas in 2006, the company is in the midst of a major growth spurt that has seen its ambitions grow beyond Texas.
Oyler, Melissa (2019-08-24). "Tiff's Treats line forms overnight for warm cookies and Brooklyn Decker, Andy Roddick". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
The article notes:
Tiff’s Treats all started after a bad date—or rather, no date. In 1999 while in college, co-founder Tiffany Chen ended up no-showing on plans with her now-husband and co-founder, Leon. She was ice skating with friends and decided it wasn’t worth picking up the pay phone to let him know she wasn’t coming.
When she told her mom what she’d done, her mom insisted she bake him chocolate chip cookies as an apology. She did, and when she delivered them to Leon, they were still warm. “‘We’ve gotta start a business,’” Tiffany said Leon told her. “He said: ‘This is going to be exactly like pizza delivery but with warm cookies.’ I said he was crazy, but two weeks later, we had it open.”
So how went the second date? “A lot better — she showed up,” Leon said.
And the rest was history.
At the end of November, a Tiff’s Treats will open at 550 Stonewall Street in uptown. Next year, a SouthPark store will open at 4425 Sharon Road.
Knight, Drew (2019-07-28). "Tiff's Treats opening first location in San Marcos". KVUE. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Since Tiffany and Leon Chen started baking cookies in their apartment and delivering them across the University of Texas campus in 1999, their local business has taken off.
After receiving $25 million in investor funding in 2017, they've started expanding nationally – and technologically. For instance, Tiff's Treats now uses a mobile app that allows customers GPS-track their delivery and even record a digital, augmented reality gift message to accompany their orders.
Tiff's Treats currently employs about 1,000 people, who have helped baked more than 100 million cookies.
Grattan, Robert (2013-11-06). "Tiff's Treats' secret ingredient: Getting politicians hooked on cookies". Austin Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
When I recently interviewed Tiff’s Treats cofounders and Austin power couple Tiffany Taylor Chen and Leon Chen, I learned not only about how the two balanced their personal and working lives but also more about the business the two have built into an almost universal Austin favorite.
...
Leon and Tiffany first noticed a boost to their cookie-delivery business around 2003, when legislators would order the cookies as a late night snack or to entice on-the-fence votes. It quickly became clear that the cookies were popular at the Capitol.
Soon, supporters and opponents of the same bills were ordering Tiff’s Treats. Cookies are apparently a bipartisan treat.
Dinges, Gary (2018-02-26). "Tiff's Treats expands to new state, acquires competing chain". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-19. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Tiff’s Treats is once again in expansion mode.
The Austin-based chain, known for delivering warm cookies and ice-cold milk for occasions big and small, said Monday that it would open two stores in Nashville, Tenn.
The move includes the acquisition of Jake’s Bakes, a Nashville company with a similar business model. Its founder, Jake Veyhl, knows Tiff’s Treats well, having attended the University of Texas.
...
Tiffany and Leon Chen founded Tiff’s Treats in Austin’s West Campus area in 1999 when they were still UT students. Since then, they’ve spread across Texas, with eight locations in the Austin area and other stores in the College Station, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio markets.
Today, there are 36 Tiff’s Treats across Texas and Georgia, with more than 700 employees.
McCann, Matt (2014-01-14). "Tiffany & Leon Want to Bake You Some Cookies: Tiff's Treats owners offer bargains to celebrate 15 years in business". The Austin Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
On Wednesday, Jan. 15, Austin’s own warm-cookie delivery company, Tiff’s Treats, celebrates its 15th anniversary. Presumably, owners Leon and Tiffany Chen will be partying like it's 1999. During the birthday week, Jan. 13-19, Tiff’s is offering a special deal: two dozen cookies for $15, online only, enter code 15YEARS.
...
Tiffany and Leon began taking the business more seriously after graduation. In 2000, they finally moved the baking out of their apartment and into the back of a Spudnick baked potato restaurant at the corner of 22nd and Guadalupe, on the Drag. In 2001, a UT advertising student named Matt came up with a logo design. The company, which still uses that logo today, paid Matt in the sweetest possible way - with cookies. In 2003, after the potato shop went out of business and the Scientology building owners wanted to expand, Tiff’s Treats moved to its current home, a converted cottage on MLK and Nueces St, still convenient for their campus clientele.
...
After dating in college, the pair took a few years off from their dating relationship, but continued to run the company together. As one might expect, at times, “It got a little beyond awkward,” Leon said. But not only did their business spring from their relationship, the business kept them together as well. “It’s funny, the company was kind of like our shared-custody baby. No matter what happened, we still had to take care of ‘the baby.’ It’s kind of a weird analogy, but it still felt like that,” Leon said. “I think our love for the company kept us together long enough for us to come back together, in a weird way.” In 2010, Tiffany and Leon got married.
...
They originally offered six or seven flavors, and now feature ten, with additional flavors popping into the lineup on occasion, such as the mint chocolate flavor available every December. There’s no specific process regarding which flavors are or aren’t added to the menu. For example, Tiffany said that she had never even heard of Snickerdoodle cookies, let alone baked and sold them, until her customers kept asking about them. Now that’s one of their most popular flavors. Their most recent addition to the menu, peanut butter chocolate chip, was added in honor of the company anniversary in 2009.
The article includes quotes from the founders.
Mawajdeh, Hady (2016-01-14). "Tiff's Treats' Warm Cookies Are Coming to Cities Outside Texas". Texas Standard. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
In 1999, two college sweethearts took their love for each other and their love for sweets and turned it into a business. Tiff and Leon Chen, owners of Tiff’s Treats, started a cookie delivery company right across the street from the University of Texas at Austin, where both went to school. Now, their reach far exceeds the 40 acres these days.
...
At first, the couple’s new venture didn’t take off. They waited three days before getting their first order. They started averaging a few orders a night. They were running the business without overhead from their shared apartment in Hyde Park.
...
In 2000 they rented a back kitchen space from a restaurant on the Drag. Then in 2003 they moved to their first space off of MLK street. Since then Tiff’s Treats has expanded to Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. It’s a staple in Austin – you don’t get cookie delivery in this city unless it’s Tiff’s.
The article includes quotes from the founders.
Porter, Kristi (2018-02-06). "Tiff's Treats: Success by the Dozen". TexasLiving. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Few things turn mature, reasonable adults into giddy, wide-eyed kids faster than fresh-from-the-oven chocolate chip cookies. These gooey confections elicit feelings of comfort, nostalgia, and happiness at a moment’s notice. Just ask Tiffany and Leon Chen, co-founders of Tiff’s Treats, a bakery and cookie delivery service. Their sugary labor of love couples her long-time flair for baking with his entrepreneurial spirit, which has resulted in a cookie empire that spans over 30 locations across three states.
...
Like all good fairy tales, their love story has had its twists and turns. In fact, it began when Tiffany stood Leon up for a date when they were sophomores at the University of Texas in 1999. Shortly after, Tiffany’s mother said she should offer some sort of apology. Being a life-long baker, Tiffany delivered Leon a fresh batch of warm cookies. And in exchange for her apology, Leon presented an idea: this should be a business. Tiff’s Treats was born.
...
The two then started baking cookies out of Leon’s apartment, taking orders via cellphone, all while finishing their college education. After graduation, they decided that this was a business worth pursuing.
...
All recipes were originally handed down from Tiffany’s mother, and have been tweaked over time. In fact, t has been a family affair for many years, with Tiffany and her siblings shooting their very first in-home television commercial when she was just 10-years-old. She starred as the baker, of course.
Lynch, Lane (2012-04-12). "Tiff's Treats finally makes it to Houston". Texas Monthly. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
In fact, it is this very gesture that lead to the creation of Tiff’s Treats, a Dallas and Austin cookie-delivery business. It all started in 1999 when Tiffany Taylor delivered her boyfriend, Leon Chen, a batch of her cookies – a recipe from her mother – which Leon quickly devoured despite the fact he didn’t care much for sweets. A converted Leon then came up with an idea: he and Tiffany could open a cookie business in his tiny kitchen apartment and sell to fellow students. Tiffany naturally obliged. The UT sophomores took to sheet pans, chocolate chips, and vanilla extract and never looked back. Fast forward 13 years and eight locations, and the couple – who married in 2010 – are now opening their first store in Houston. At the grand opening this Saturday, the couple will be celebrating the journey to Houston by selling cookies for $3 a dozen and handing out prizes all day. All proceeds from the grand opening will go towards granting a wish at the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
The article includes an interview with the founders.
Cadwallader, Robert (2017-07-13). "Warm-cookie delivery shop opening at Champions Park in north Arlington". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Tiff’s Treats North Texas locations include Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, Richardson, Las Colinas, Addison, Allen and Richardson. Tiff’s Treats was founded by North Texas natives Tiffany and Leon Chen in 1999, after they started as friends baking and delivering cookies at the request of fellow students at the University of Texas at Austin.
"Tiff's Treats' Secret Recipe (For Success): The company launched 19 years ago with a pair of UT students baking in a cramped apartment. As it continues to scale up—now with 40 stores in three states—can it continue to deliver the same cookies that Austin fell in love with?". Austin Monthly. June 2018. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Nineteen years later Tiffany and Leon Chen, each dressed in on-brand shades of blue and white and now married with two young children, are standing in the open kitchen of their high-ceilinged, light-filled Northwest Austin home telling me about the launch of their cookie delivery business from a cramped Hyde Park apartment.
Tiff’s Treats has become a burgeoning empire, claiming a valuation of “well over” $100 million (privately held, the company declined to share sales revenue figures). It has raised $50 million in funding during the last few years, including $25 million via Morgan Stanley Expansion Capital last November. Its investors include Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings (former CEO of Pizza Hut), as well as former executives of Papa John’s, Starbucks, and Whole Foods Market. The company employs more than 700 in three states: Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee, where it bought an existing Nashville business (Jake’s Bakes) in March.
...
Earlier in the day, a short drive from the Chen home, I visit Tiff’s Treats’ slick new corporate offices located along Capital of Texas Highway at Bluffstone Drive, which they moved into last fall. The space’s more than 12,000 square feet feel even larger because only about 30 employees work there. The company intends to continue its expansion into new markets and likewise expects its corporate team to grow, doubling or tripling in the years to come.
Alfonso III, Fernando (2017-08-01). "Tiff's Treats bakery taps University of Texas football stars for new ad". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
An Austin-based bakery has enlisted the help of some famous University of Texas football players to help sell some cookies.
Tiff's Treats released a new TV spot Tuesday morning featuring former quarterback and Heisman finalist Vince Young and former running back Ricky Williams.
In the ad, Williams and Young, who won the BCS National Championship with Texas in 2006, can be seen sitting outside snacking on some cookies.
"M&M's are my favorite Tiff's Treats," Young tells Williams.
Dinges, Gary (2017-11-16). "Just In: Tiff's Treats lands $25 million to fund continued growth". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Austin-based Tiff’s Treats has landed $25 million in funding to help fuel i....ts founders’ appetite for continued growth.
The 18-year-old company, which delivers warm cookies and other sweets, is getting the Series D money from investment funds led by Morgan Stanley Expansion Capital.
...
Combined with $11 million in Series C funding led by CIC Partners in November of last year and $14 million in Series B funding led by Capstar Partners in August 2015, Tiff’s Treats has received $50 million total in financial backing in the past three years.
...
Tiff’s Treats, which got its start in the West Campus area in 1999 when Taylor Chen and now-husband Leon Chen were still students at the University of Texas, has expanded across Texas – with locations in Austin, Cedar Park, Westlake, College Station, the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, central and suburban Houston and San Antonio. It’s also operating five stores in Atlanta – its first outside Texas – and plans to enter the Nashville, Tenn., market soon.
Grisales, Claudia (2016-09-23). "An Austin institution, Tiff's Treats eyes bigger expansion". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-17. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
The article notes:
Of all the close calls Tiff’s Treats faced in its humble beginnings more than 15 years ago, none threatened to torpedo Austin’s warm cookie delivery business like the drama of young college love.
This, as Tiff’s Treats survived its start out of a crammed Hyde Park apartment, was booted from its first store and even faced legal action from jeweler Tiffany & Co.
But as it turns out, Tiffany Taylor Chen’s and Leon Chen’s on-again, off-again romance stuck, and with help from family and friends and a good dash of luck, Tiff’s Treats now boasts 18 Texas locations, more than 300 workers and a new cash infusion of $5.7 million fueling national expansion plans.
...
The two have spawned one of Austin’s business success stories, growing a network of stores in Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston after their modest January 1999 start. Tiff’s Treats is now conducting market research to decide where they will launch their first stores outside of Texas. And they could raise another $3 million or so through their current round of fundraising, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Brayles, Addie. (2009-01-28). "10 years of Treats: Started in college apartment, Tiff's expands its realm of delivering warm cookies" (pages 1 and 2). Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
It was January 1999 when Taylor and Chen, who met while attending junior high together in Richardson but didn't start dating until college, started baking at Chen's Hyde Park apartment. Within a few months, they knew they would need a retail space. "We walked up and down the Drag asking every single restaurant and bbusiness if we could share their space," he says. A restaurant specializing in baked potatoes let them rent part of their kitchen. When Spudnik went out of business two years later, Chen and Taylor created a walk-up window for customers to pick up cookies.
...
They eventually graduated in 2001, but barely, Chen says.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tiff's Treats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Although I would agree that the PRWeb citation should be deleted and some other edits might be helpful, substantial citations from legitimate third-party media outlets exist as noted above by Cunard to suport the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. A cursory search of the web reveals a number of legitimate citations that are not part of the existing page including:
-- The Nashville Tennessean, Austin's Tiff's Treats bringing 'warm cookie moments' to Nashville
-- The Austin Chronicle, Tiffany & Leon Want to Bake You Some Cookies

ThePhantom65 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cunard lists multiple references above but based on an incorrect interpretation of "independent" source. "Independent" doesn't simply mean that there's no connection between the publisher and the content, but also means that the *content* must be independent. WP:ORGIND states that references must by "intellectually" independent and that Independent Content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References must also be significant coverage with in-depth information on the company in addition to containing independent content.
- Wyman, Caroline (2014). The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes & Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake Pie. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-1-58157-162-2. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - simply lists places around the US where you can buy chocolate chip cookies. This reference is not significant coverage, contains no [[WP:CORPDEPTH|in-depth information] on the company and appears to take the information from the company's promotional literature. It is little more than a directory entry.
- Esquivel, Crystal (2011). Food Lovers' Guide to® Austin: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants & Events. Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-0-7627-7027-4. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - is also little more than a directory entry among a list of businesses categorised as "foodie faves". Contains no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- Shine, Conor (2017-11-15). "Tiff's Treats cooks up $25 million in investment to deliver warm cookies to more places: After opening its first stores in Austin in 2003 and in Dallas in 2006, the company is in the midst of a major growth spurt that has seen its ambitions grow beyond the confines of Texas". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-15. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - is based on a company announcement. It says it right in the article. Not independent. Fails ORGIND.
- Oyler, Melissa (2019-08-24). "Tiff's Treats line forms overnight for warm cookies and Brooklyn Decker, Andy Roddick". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25. - is a puff piece on a store opening with quotations from the customers standing in line to get stuff signed from the "brand ambassadors" and an interview with the founders. The very definition of corporate spam. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
- Knight, Drew (2019-07-28). "Tiff's Treats opening first location in San Marcos". KVUE. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - another puff piece based on an announcement (PR) of a store opening from the company. Fails ORGIND.
- Grattan, Robert (2013-11-06). "Tiff's Treats' secret ingredient: Getting politicians hooked on cookies". Austin Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - based on an interview - says it in the article. No independent content. Fails ORGIND.
- Dinges, Gary (2018-02-26). "Tiff's Treats expands to new state, acquires competing chain". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-19. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - based on a company announcement/PR. No original content, fails ORGIND.
- McCann, Matt (2014-01-14). "Tiffany & Leon Want to Bake You Some Cookies: Tiff's Treats owners offer bargains to celebrate 15 years in business". The Austin Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - based on a company announcement/PR on their "15 years in business". Corporate spam complete with photos of the founders, company-provided stats, etc. Contains no independent content. Fails ORGIND.
- Mawajdeh, Hady (2016-01-14). "Tiff's Treats' Warm Cookies Are Coming to Cities Outside Texas". Texas Standard. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - more corporate spam entirely based on an interview, no independent content, fails ORGIND.
- Porter, Kristi (2018-02-06). "Tiff's Treats: Success by the Dozen". TexasLiving. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - yet more sugary-sweet corporate spam, contains no independent content, fails ORGIND.
- Lynch, Lane (2012-04-12). "Tiff's Treats finally makes it to Houston". Texas Monthly. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - yet more corporate spam drumming up interest in their store opening the following weekend, all information provided by the company, no independent content. Fails ORGIND.
- Cadwallader, Robert (2017-07-13). "Warm-cookie delivery shop opening at Champions Park in north Arlington". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - another store opening, another puff piece along the same lines as every other piece. There is no independent content in this article, fail ORGIND.
- "Tiff's Treats' Secret Recipe (For Success): The company launched 19 years ago with a pair of UT students baking in a cramped apartment. As it continues to scale up—now with 40 stores in three states—can it continue to deliver the same cookies that Austin fell in love with?". Austin Monthly. June 2018. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - entire article based on interviews/quotations from the founders and information provided by the company. It contains no independent content. Fails ORGIND.
- Alfonso III, Fernando (2017-08-01). "Tiff's Treats bakery taps University of Texas football stars for new ad". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - commentary on the company's ads where they enlisted football players to sell their products followed by comments from one of the players. Contains no in-depth corporate information and no Independent Content. Fails ORGIND.
- Dinges, Gary (2017-11-16). "Just In: Tiff's Treats lands $25 million to fund continued growth". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-18. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - based on a company announcement of funding, fails ORGIND
- Grisales, Claudia (2016-09-23). "An Austin institution, Tiff's Treats eyes bigger expansion". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2019-11-17. Retrieved 2019-11-24. - another sugary corporate puff-piece based entirely on interview/quotations from the founders, no independent content, fails ORGIND.
- "10 years of Treats: Started in college apartment, Tiff's expands its realm of delivering warm cookies" (pages 1 and 2) - yet more puff-pieces with zero Independent Content and based entirely on interview/quotation from the founders sprinkled with the odd comments from customers. Fails ORGIND.
- Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-25. Retrieved 2019-11-25. – via Newspapers.com. - the exact same article as above, fails for the same reasons.
Clearly, this company has good relationships with local newspapers and promotes their business by making themselves available for interviews and photographs and personally attend store openings. But none of these article are of any use for establishing notability. None contain any independent analysis or commentary on the company and when each article is taken as a whole, it is clear that all of the information on the company was provided to the journalists. It all follows the exact same story and most even use the same comments/quotations and sentences. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources contain independent commentary of the subject. The Austin American-Statesman notes about the two Tiff's Treats founders, "The two have spawned one of Austin’s business success stories, growing a network of stores in Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston after their modest January 1999 start." The article provides some negative material about the company's struggles, "Tiff's Treats survived its start out of a crammed Hyde Park apartment, was booted from its first store and even faced legal action from jeweler Tiffany & Co." The Dallas Morning News notes, "After opening its first stores in Austin in 2003 and in Dallas in 2006, the company is in the midst of a major growth spurt that has seen its ambitions grow beyond Texas." The Texas Standard notes, "It’s a staple in Austin – you don’t get cookie delivery in this city unless it’s Tiff’s." Austin Business Journal calls the company "an almost universal Austin favorite". Austin Monthly says "Tiff's Treats has become a burgeoning empire".
Many of the articles contain different details. For example, KVUE notes, "For instance, Tiff's Treats now uses a mobile app that allows customers GPS-track their delivery and even record a digital, augmented reality gift message to accompany their orders." The other articles do not discuss this. Austin Business Journal notes, "Leon and Tiffany first noticed a boost to their cookie-delivery business around 2003, when legislators would order the cookies as a late night snack or to entice on-the-fence votes. It quickly became clear that the cookies were popular at the Capitol. Soon, supporters and opponents of the same bills were ordering Tiff’s Treats. Cookies are apparently a bipartisan treat." The other articles do not discuss this.
The Austin Chronicle provides in-depth details of the company's early days that the other sources do not provide, "Tiffany and Leon began taking the business more seriously after graduation. In 2000, they finally moved the baking out of their apartment and into the back of a Spudnick baked potato restaurant at the corner of 22nd and Guadalupe, on the Drag. In 2001, a UT advertising student named Matt came up with a logo design. The company, which still uses that logo today, paid Matt in the sweetest possible way - with cookies. In 2003, after the potato shop went out of business and the Scientology building owners wanted to expand, Tiff’s Treats moved to its current home, a converted cottage on MLK and Nueces St, still convenient for their campus clientele."
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Look, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. I've pointed out several times in the past, as have other editors, that your style of inundating the AFD process with lots and lots of references, many of which clearly fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, is disruptive. You don't need 10 or 20 references (or you wouldn't if you understood and read [[WP:NCORP}}). Just pick the three of four, the best of what you can find. Otherwise it is frustrating when I (and others I'm sure) read every one of your references which is a waste of time. It is disruptive. And I suspect the problem, in part, is that you don't acknowledge WP:NCORP and rely on bland statements such as "sufficient coverage in realiable sources" which, by the way, is not enough of a reason to accept sources.
- Your say that several sources contain "independent commentary". I entirely disagree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that your statement is utterly false. You appear to be content with plucking individual sentences from various articles and selecting those, in isolation of the rest of the article and out of context with the entire article. For example. The Austin American-Statesman article relies entirely on an interview with the founders. It starts with a large photo of the founders under a sign for Tiff's Treats. The opening of the article parrots the exact same story as every other PR article you've listed. The tone and text of the article is very clearly not independent content as all the material is provided by the founders. For example: "It was January 1999 when Taylor and Chen, who met while attending junior high together in Richardson but didn't start dating until college, started baking at Chen's Hyde Park apartment". Clearly, the journalist is not offering independent opinion or fact-checking but is recounting what he has been told. The inclusion of "negative material" is a story-telling device that precedes the sugary uplifting "strive-through-adversity" success. The other articles are exactly the same. Not a single article meets the criteria for Independent Content and article must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's analysis. I checked a few of the sources and he's right: they're derivative. b uidhe 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as always, it is the depth of coverage and not the amount of coverage that counts when establishing a topic as meeting WP:NCORP. Working upon Highking's analysis, there seems to be a lack of truly in-depth, sustained, independent coverage. In addition, it should be questioned as to if the topic even has a credible claim to encyclopedic significance, IE how they are notably unique when compared against other bakery services. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Many of the sources cited here are independent, third party newspaper offering factual information about this organization. Cunard makes this point above. We must be very careful when evaluating what we believe to be "quality" coverage and, instead, focus on the source. For instance, The Austin American Statesman is a legitimate newspaper. They made the clear editorial decision to include this organization in their coverage. While we may disagree on the tone of the piece itself, we cannot make a judgement about the editorial decision to cover what the newsroom believes to be a notable organization. They made a decision to feature this organization in their newspaper. The same could be said for the Dallas Morning News, Nation's Restaurant News, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, and others. If the standard for WP:N demands citations from "reliable," "independent" and "objective" sources, that standard has been met here. Moreover, the inclusion of this organization in a book-length piece further supports a claim of WP:N. Starting a discussion that challenges the editorial decisions of an independent, third-party source opens up a standard that is extremely difficult to sustain.Coffee312 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Coffee312, yes, I believe everyone would agree that many of the sources are independent, but only insofar as that there is no connection at a corporate level between the publishing organization and the topic company. That is insufficient, on its own, to determine whether a source meets the criteria for establishing independence. Please read WP:ORGIND for a full explanation. Nobody is critizing the publisher - certainly nobody has said that the Austin American Statesman isn't a "legitimate" newspaper. The question is whether the *content* is independent. This also has been defined in ORGIND as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Therefore, the focus has been on the content of the articles and nothing to do with the decisions made by the publisher leading them to publish the article. Also, be aware that the requirement listed in WP:N is for a source to be "Independent of the subject" which also mean that the content must be independent and this is further explained at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite having apparently the world's best PR team, this is not independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Indeed, this organization may have good PR, but looking at the citations, they are written by independent journalists. This clearly meets the standard for WP:ORGIND "independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". As noted above, one citation here is from a press release, which should be removed. However, most of the remaining citations are clearly from sources unaffiliated with the subject. Moreover, they are not drawn from subject's web page. Notably, as demonstrated on the talk page, an account with COI has not edited this page but, instead, asked unaffiliated members of the WP community. To delete this page based on independently reported stories that may have a tone that one does not agree with, would be a gross miscarriage of authority. I want to reiterate a recommendation to KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee312 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Can you point out one reference where you conclude it demonstrates independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc which were not provided by sources unaffiliated to the company, and point out the particular part of the content which demonstrates this independence? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's evisceration of the PR-based sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 13 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 Draftify. While there is a clear consensus not to Keep the article in its current form as it does not meet GNG; after a re-list, there was a consensus to Draftify the article on the basis that near-term events "might" create sufficient RS for GNG. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anveshi Jain[edit]

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

The actress does not seem notable. Her only claim to fame seems to be "spike in google search" for one event. "most googled name" is also not supported by reliable sources. WP:ONEEVENT thus also applies. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't looks like it is just one event famous person.... Rather it's looks like a actress page with incomplete information... Found some reliable references.... Actress has worked in 3-4 films as lead and also recipient of Dadasaheb Phalke Icon Award 2019 and many others which makes picture clear.... Article can be kept and instead of deletion, it needs updation and addition of missing and updated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.204.72 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify ~~Comment~~ (responding from WP Indian film task force) Patrika mentions that she had got 30 million Google search hits in January. So far acted in 1 Episode of a web series Gandi baat and not a leading role in BOSS series. No major role yet. She has 2 films upcoming,( G (2020 film) coming up in Jan, where she is the main actress) so it is possible that they may improve the notability. I would suggest to Draftify the article for the time being. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as above, with two major roles coming soon there should be more coverage available later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Lets wait for few days to test the notability. Although it qualifies WP:TOOSOON, I see no harm in waiting for a month. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above appears to be the best course of action - may meet GNG at a later point in time. ~riley (talk) 00:11, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkr Village (Montreal)[edit]

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

One-time non-notable event. I have no idea why we would have an article on this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 14:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 14:07, 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 merge to X-Statix , whose AfD is moving towards a keep at the moment. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Girl[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found, or at worst merge to X-Statix. BOZ (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to X-Statix. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to X-Statix? I'm on the fence on this one. She did star in her own book (and might meet the good Argento Surfer's criteria), and I was going to say that the article should be kept and shifted to focus more on the work than the character, but after searching, all 10 reviews here are coming from Comics Bulletin, so maybe she wasn't that notable to generate interest. I searched for X-Statix material, and she gets some passing mentions from The AV Club, Paste, and Newsarama, but this is all good material for X-Statix, not Dead Girl. She got some brief mentions of how her artwork was handled in a recent book here and here, but I can't really say any of this is material that can't be adequately covered in the greater X-Statix page. -2pou (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out IGN did a couple reviews of Issue #1 and Issue #2, but those didn't have numerical values, hence their absence from the roundup. Still, with their brevity, I lean towards saying it can be covered by X-Statix. -2pou (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to X-Statix. She kinda had a self-titled series, but the title began with "X-Statix Presents". I think her adventures are adequately described at the target article, and I would not oppose restoration if additional sources become available. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 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. Sandstein 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courier (comics)[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Gambit (comics). BOZ (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no secondary sources, and nothing showing real world notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 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. Sandstein 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Vicke Lee Lamberton[edit]

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

Only local interest DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very hyperlocal. We don't think we keep this type of article as it is so generic. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, already appropriately mentioned at Lady of the Dunes. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myint Mo May[edit]

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

I doubt that this beauty contest (Face of Beauty) is considered sufficiently important that the individual winners are considered notable by the mere fact of their participation.(It's not my usual field, so I may of course be completely wrong about this) DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a contest that confers notability and the coverage is not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Did not meet WP:GNG-Richie Campbell (talk) 21:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Babylon 5 articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

When I AfD-nomed this index page a month ago, it ended with a keep basically because index pages are allowed per WP:CLN. Well, the Babylon 5 WP:FANCRUFT cleanup drive is nearing the end, and about 90% of the links are redirects now. This Index page is only linked from within {{Babylon 5}}, where all remaining articles are conveniently linked, i.e. it's completely redundant for navigational purposes. For anything else, this index page is more like an in-universe glossary now, and WP:NOTDIR might apply. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It has outlived its usefulness. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a reason we have categories. Ajf773 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the past 30 days [19] this index has gotten 3,474 page views. So some are still using it. Is there a bot to see how many of the blue links are still to articles and not redirects? Even if 90% are just redirects, well, 10% is still a lot of blue links. I look at Category:Babylon_5 and see a lot of articles seem to exist, but apparently whenever someone went through and turned a lot of them into redirects they left this category tag on them. Is there any bot that can remove all categories from redirect articles other than the Hidden categories? Dream Focus 02:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick category browse with my specialized css settings, I can tell that most sub-categories are indeed filled with redirects, and the only real articles are all linked from the nav box. I'll have a look soon into how to best clean up these redirect-categories. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Functionally useless, and CLN does state consensus can decide that certain ways are inappropriate. I'd say these lists are extremely poor choices for the management of fiction, which are quite often in massive flux compared to other topics. It makes keeping lists up to date much harder than real world items. TTN (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Because of the huge number of redirects, a navbox would surely serve the purpose better. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was nothing but a lengthy list of cruft in its heyday and currently fairly useless as more and more of these crufty pages are getting deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:01, 15 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)} 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Jamia Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I can't comment on the quality of this other wiki [20] but it does seem that this is the case of notable school that we have failed to document so far. @Störm saying fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG is not very helpful- as we have no idea what your concern is, and are wasting a lot of time trying to imagine what it is before we can verify it for the discussion. The less worthy the article the longer it takes. ClemRutter (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Abbottabad Public School article, related to your other wiki. My concern is there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which is necessary to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I hope you know this already that any private school should meet WP:NORG or WP:NCORP if they fails WP:GNG as per guidlines after 2017 RfC on school articles. Störm (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 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) 09:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2017 we abandoned the view that all secondary schools were notable, and there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Macintosh models[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article appears to be a good example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFAQ, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE seem most relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as PRODder). My reasoning: I feel this article has failed in its purpose: it's both not hugely necessary and has failed in the task it was set up to do. Apple's product matrix, the top of this article, is covered well in the main Macintosh article. It means there's quite large dividing lines between its models (generally, people know if they want a Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro), and where there are overlaps this is generally much better covered by review websites that can do speed comparisons than by a fairly meaningless set of tables as here (hey, what's the difference between "Intel HD Graphics 515" and "Intel Iris Graphics 540"? Which one's better?). I feel the article would only be useful if it was embraced by the editing community as important and the subject of regular updates, but there seems no interest in it (e.g. nobody's taken out the references to the discontinued MacBook, or put in much about the iMac Pro), whereas the articles on individual product lines are regularly updated by interested contributors. I favour either deleting the article or merging/redirecting to Macintosh, which could or already does hold most of the content of this rather short article fairly easily in a place where it's more likely to get attention and regular updates. Blythwood (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that perhaps the article could use some attention. However, if we're determining the viability of a page based on its potential usage, then it should be noted that over 2,000 people monthly view this article. Further, the comparison problems that you are mentioning are certainly in need of expansion. IMO standards are a bit too strict here in terms of what deserves an article, but that's not my point. The point here is that this article is, in fact, quite valuable, if maintained. Perhaps further integrating it into the rest of Wikipedia would help. There's absolutely no reason Wikipedia shouldn't have comparison articles like this. SuperChris (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: None of the reasons this was listed for deletion are true. Comparing product models is not promotion. Having a table comparing models is not akin to being a manual or a dictionary. There is useful information here, and evidently is being used as pointed out by SuperChris. Sure it needs work, but I don't see why this should be outright deleted. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: *Keep; This article is NOT promotion. It would have no place on the official Apple website. JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *Merge. Although I do not see the subject matter as being worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as a separate article, I see very little reason that the valuable information contained within it must disappear forever, if not none at all. As such, I consider a merge with Macintosh, or a similar article. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *Keep. This was the first article on Bing Search that I went to at the time that I was trying to decide which Mac to purchase. It helped me make the final verdict. I imagine that other people might face a similar dilemma to what I have experienced, so please keep this article! It is a more useful resource than one might expect. LizzyPiez (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (struck sock !voters} Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful memories and overview of product devleopment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a good article, very informative. Strongly keep! - Jay (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'd like to see what reliable, secondary sources are making these types of comparisons. Because right now our page looks like a mirror of apple.com and I'm having trouble seeing its encyclopedic purpose. Not sure what's going on with List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type and List of Macintosh models by case type either, besides a heap of original research. I'd merge the three into a single list of Macintosh products with a simple comparison table for date of release and major features. The difference between each refresh of a product fits within the scope of each product's individual article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 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) 09:19, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Marie[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ----NL19931993 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met by substantial coverage in mainstream media, including Engadget (four paragraphs of the article), The Daily Beast (three paragraphs of the article), Maxim, and Glamour, plus appearances in numerous other sources. BD2412 T 03:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete The sourcing is not deep enough to actually pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BD2412 plus there are several more paragraphs about her in another The Daily Beast article [22]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per finding of Morbidthoughts. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep while a lot of porn star articles tend to get flooded with bad quality sources (industry self-promotion, interviews, and other non-WP:RS), this one actally has extensive sourcing to reliable third party coverages specifically about the subject. She might be the rare example of a porn star that passes WP:GNG. That being said, quite a few of these sources are not about her but are instead sources that discuss her in the context of some other topic, but even with that I think the balance tends to lean towards keep. Michepman (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep fair sources, acceptable size. Akela (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lewis, Jr. (Florida judge)[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. Not a state level judge. Florida has Five District Court of Appeals. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Florida state chief judge. Chief judges of the Florida District Courts of Appeal are notable. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Passes WP:JUDGE. This person served as the Chief Judge of Florida First District Court of Appeal and is still on the court. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lefcentreright:, @Sagotreespirit:, WP:JUDGE reads- "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office. Lewis is a member of the Florida First District Court of Appeal. Florida has FIVE District Court of Appeal, none of which cover the whole state. He is not a state-wide judge. My nomination clearly said that. The rationale for your keep votes is erroneous....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the abbreviation relating to sub-national judges in WP:JUDGE is "e.g.", not "i.e." - that means it is not exhaustive. Bookscale (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my standards for lawyers. He was not just a AAG but a "Bureau Chief", chief judge for his appellate district, applied to the Florida Supreme Court, but didn't get it, "recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law" - administrative law, and "service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency". Bearian (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: FYI, chief judge of Florida appellate rotates every two years. If someone is on the court long enough, they'll get the position....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet judicial notability. That is reserved for state wide judges, not sub-statwide judges. The fact he tried to get appointment to the state supreme court but failed does not change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not for Bearian's comment this would be a delete as the other keep !votes are based on a misunderstanding of how WP:JUDGE applies to this person's role.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the appropriate criteria by which to assess this subject is set forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. This guideline states with respect to judges of state courts of appeals: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable". BD2412 T 06:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida First District Court of Appeal. The subject does not qualify as automatically notable per WP:JUDGE because his court is not a state supreme court. Nor do the sources in this article establish him as being notable enough in his own right to support having an article of his own. As a second choice, just delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Lepricavark (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida First District Court of Appeal as a non-state-wide judge. A seriously edge argument could be that in the matter of workers' compensation claims he technically is state-wide, but I believe that too niche. If the court handled all administrative law, I might reconsider, but in lieu of good reasoning to the contrary, he's out. NJUDGE, BASIC & GNG are the only relevant notability guidelines, as project's can't issue binding guidance. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:JUDGE. Chief Judge of Florida First District Court of Appeal. Wm335td (talk) 19:51, 16 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 late trend. BD2412 T 14:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Maya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

quite apart from the impossibly bad translation, I don't think this shows notability The refs are routine promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I said in the last AfD, 90% of Colombian journalism is promotional fluff and sycophancy. You're going to struggle to find objective sources, especially about models and TV presenters. But the sources are reliable ones. Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think so. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, and run of the mill model and YouTuber. She's not a professional journalist - it seems like she's more of a blogger/vlogger. Her sole claim to fame appears to be playing herself in the original series of Ugly Betty. That's not even close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: just to clarify, W Radio is a reputable and recognized nationally-broadcast radio station, and she presents on it in a professional capacity as part of the drivetime team each weekday evening. If that's not considered enough to make her notable, I won't argue with it, but in Colombia it's almost impossible to become a female radio or TV presenter without being a model and/or former beauty queen, so I wouldn't hold that against her as her background... it's whether she's done enough after that to make her notable. Richard3120 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 I'm old enough to remember that female teachers who got pregnant were fired, ugly Betty types were not taken seriously in public life, and to become a female New York City Commissioner you had to be Miss America first. Becoming a model was a tried and true method of advancement in my mother's day (the 1950's and 1960s - she had us triplets after she lost her hourglass figure). We gays love our beauty queens. The problem with modelling as a career is that on Wikipedia, we've found it difficult to quantify what makes a model or a radio DJ notable. I don't think we have standards, and I'm not going to link to some deprecated guidelines, as they would not be helpful. So, like many Wikipedians, I fall back on WP:SIGCOV and WP:42, which are far from perfect. Now, as to your specific example, perhaps being a drive time presenter in a major media market is sufficient. Let me think about it. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I agree with you, and have no particular interest in either keeping or deleting this article, merely to point out that she has progressed somewhat from being simply a model and YouTuber. I accept though that it is definitely difficult to find SIGCOV for Colombian presenters, in a country where much of the journalistic reporting is in the style of Hello! magazine, with an emphasis on the glamorous lives led by actors, footballers and models. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Pardon the pun, but I've alerted the media: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio#Drive_time. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance, let alone notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Note: this is the nominator[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear delete consensus here, we just had a keep consensus 1 month ago and the people here are (with the exception of 1 editor) completely different. As such I am including that participation when weighing consensus here and find that no consensus has yet been reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:SIGCOV in Vanguardia, El Espectador, El Tiempo, El Colombiano, among others, from 2003-2019. Even though some of those contain interviews, they also include the reporters' writing about her. As a model from the early 1990s to 2005, there is probably also a lot of coverage which is not online. I have focused on adding citations and sources to support the information in the article, but I have also added a bit more info that the sources reveal, including that her photos appeared on student notebooks in the late 1990s-early 2000s (when she was also appearing in many advertising campaigns), so she would have been very well known to a generation of school and university students. A Google search shows more coverage of her, which could be added to the article. She clearly meets WP:GNG and probably also WP:NMODEL, which would surely cover someone who is recognisable and written about, no matter what she is recognisable for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She clearly meets WP:GNG and the SNG of WP:NMODEL, She also appearing in many advertising campaigns. Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 13:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after work by RebeccaGreen. This is possibly a precedent that drive-time DJs could be considered notable, if shown by significant coverage (past or present). Bearian (talk) 03:52, 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. The consensus has shifted to delete. Tone 18:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 The Hague stabbing[edit]

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

Not terrorism, no deaths, WP:NOTNEWS. No more than a knife attack by a homeless man. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG due to significant media coverage. Also, claiming it is nothing more than a knife attack by a homeless man is original research in of itself, since it has not been reported to be so. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to cast a keep !vote, but where's the WP:OR? "Homeless man" and knife attack are in the article. WWGB (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was recently added, apologies Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG with signifigant news coverage. See [23], [24]. Clovermoss (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Here is another ref: [25]. This one is from The Guardian. There is also this [26] from the Globe and Mail. Clovermoss (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC) There is also this from Time [27] which mentions that the investigation is ongoing and the the street in which the attack occured was closed. Since this particular day was Black Friday, and this happened hours after the attack in London, this might explain the sudden increase in international news coverage. A lot of sources mention the attack in London, as well. However, this event is still recent. Reading the specific notability criteria for events, what stands out to me is lasting impact since something like this might appear in international news and will lose impact once resolved. I can't really tell if that will be the case here, since I can't predict the future. There is currently a lot of international news coverage; including The New York Times [28], The Washington Post [29], Global News [30], CBC [31], The Irish Times [32]. Clovermoss (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crime blotter. No deaths, three relatively minor injuries. All victims were discharged from the hospital within a few hours. No evidence of terrorism. No evidence of an unusual or political motive. The spurt of media coverage is a side effect of a separate terrorist knife attack in London a few hours earlier. Countless trivial crimes get an intense but brief burst of media coverage, and the crime is soon forgotten by everyone but the victims and those directly involved in dealing with the aftermath of the crime. This seems to be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant multiple stabbings in 2018 & 2019. Jim Michael (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There have been multiple stabbings in every year of human history, and archeology shows that multiple stabbings go back to the dawn of humanity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but random mass stabbings aren't so common in the streets of busy city centres in 21st century Europe. That's why they gain media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Stabbing, about 8 million stabbings occurred in 2013. There is zero consensus that Wikipedia should have an article about every crime that receives a 24 hour burst of media coverage, especially when there are zero deaths and zero serious injuries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But only a small minority of those are mass stabbings, in the street, against strangers. Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_stabbings#List of stabbings in Europe. Fails WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING. If this had been any other time than following the London stabbings, or if the perpetrator had been arrested at the scene, this would never have made international news. Sjö (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Unfortunately, stabbings are routine news events. This one received a burst of international news coverage (probably due to the 2019 London Bridge stabbing happening on the same day), but that alone doesn't make it notable. There hasn't been any significant coverage at all since immediately (2 days) after the event and likely never will be. Surachit (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage, passes WP:GNG. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it got a lot of press coverage, the only reason it got that in the first place is the time correlation with the London stabbings were the media suspected it was probably terrorist. As a citizen of The Hague, I would like to comment I haven't seen any coverage since the day after the stabbing. Dwaro (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring historical significance or significant lasting effect. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I almost always support retention in cases like this, as there generally is enough to meet the prongs, but I'm inclined to feel that there isn't Lasting coverage - there was a functionally final pulse a few days ago when they confirmed it wasn't terrorist-motivated. But it's not a case of 16 days of ongoing coverage, but an initial surge then a blip. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Baptist Bible College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable and unaccredited college, does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The references sources available all appear to relate to the school's (former) California property, or to the post-attendance behaviour of its former students. That notable people attended the school does not make the school notable. There do not appear to be any more current sources about the school, and basic information such as number of students is not included in the school's website. Risker (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the last AfD. I think the nominator is misguided about the significance of the history of the institution - if there is significant coverage under the former name in a former location - that is enough for notability. St Anselm (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've hit the nail on the head. There isn't significant coverage of this private college in either its current existence or its past existence. There's a brief, 2-paragraph mention in a book. There are three articles from a local paper in the early 1990s, one short one about the campus and student rules, and the other two about a land sale the school was trying to get approved. There doesn't seem to be any other independent reporting or information about the school in either its former or current iterations. The arguments in the last AFD were largely based on a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ORGCRIT that essentially prejudged all high schools and colleges as being de facto notable; that isn't the case anymore, and hasn't been for several years. The majority of references in the article are about the misdeeds of alumni. They are appropriate for the articles about notable alumni, and are actually not relevant to the college; that section probably should be removed from the article on a BLP basis. Risker (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC) NOTE: I forgot to include the two references "demonstrating" that the college participated in intercollegiate sports when located in California. Both articles mention the college only in passing, and are not at all about the college; in fact, they're about totally different college sports programs. Risker (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources of its history which is valid content and so there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE has not turned up any useable sources. Lack of accreditation and lack of reliable non trivial secondary sources mean that this college fails both SNG and GNG. Wm335td (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My weak keep is due to the college's previous incarnation and the minor coverage in the LA Times. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:06, 16 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. Despite improvement, consensus is still on the side of deletion with this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet our notability guidelines on stand-alone lists, in that multiple independent secondary and reliable sources are present that discuss this as a coherent grouping. The only source provided is from a dictionary, which does not count as a secondary source, and a Google Search does not turn up any other sources on my end. The PROD was contested with the rationale that "There is a list of NZ towns. According to the logic of deleting this page, that page should also be deleted", which while understandable does not follow, as one article's existence on Wikipedia is not a guarantee for the existence of any other article. I'd be happy to merge this into another article, such as the main New Zealand place name list, but I doubt that it is a viable list in of itself. If it is kept the name will have to be changed, but that's secondary and I'd be happy to do that later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author of this list started adding a mark to each town with an NZSL sign at List of towns in New Zealand. ~~If completed, that might be more appropriate than this separate article.~~-gadfium 04:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objections to such a merger if that is where consensus leads. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is improperly formatted, and - as user gadfium noted above - is made redundant by recent/upcoming changes to List of towns in New Zealand. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. I need to correct an error and then perhaps gadrium will change vote. The list differs from the NZ list that I started adding the letter N to, so it needs a different list

2. The argument about a single source is not strong. Lots of wiki pages have only one source.

Something is wrong with this webpage I'm typing on. I can't see the other arguemnts while I type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to spin off to a whole different list in order to accommodate a single marking, perhaps the N can be used as a superscript like <sup>N</sup> to produce ^N. Also, the fact that many articles have only a single source to them is an error on their part, reflected with the {{One source}} cleanup template, and not a valid reason to make such articles. If other sources exist that have yet to be added to the article that would help it establish notability that would be a reason to keep, but I have yet to find them. Also, you can see other people's arguments while typing by pressing the "Show preview" button below the edit summary field, and don't forget to sign your posts at the end of them with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John. The N idea doesn't work. The other list is different. It's a list of town only, not place names. Some are in common but they are two different things. The show box is useful. thanks. Kelly222 (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that it's different, perhaps this could be merged into a theoretical List of places in New Zealand, although that itself has issues of clear inclusion criteria. I might agree with you that this could be a spinoff if judged solely on that front, but as said above I have yet to see evidence that the topic is notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. And no problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ross doesn't make a strong argument. It can easily be formatted properly. Kelly222 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you on that front, but I still think that this is a bit redundant given the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't show up in my watchlist. Can I add it? Thanks John. Notable seems to be a question of taste and interpretation. I don't understand why the only list of NZSL place names is not a useful reference in an encyclopedia. When you say all of the above could you be more specific and only use items that haven't been refuted yet. Kelly222 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You can add a page to your watchlist by clicking on the star icon in the tabs immediately left of the search box. Usefulness in of itself is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia, as it is not a directory. While notability can very well be hard to deduce in many specific cases, the criteria themselves are fairly straightforward and I don't see any evidence that this list passes them. Please don't take this personally; this is not a reflection of you even as a Wikipedia editor, it is merely a statement that the topic at hand does not appear to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. (Also, please add any subsequent comments to the bottom of this page, rather than the top. Thanks!) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable topic for any stand alone list. The distinction of NZSL is already been covered in an aforementioned article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again John. Can you spell out for me which criteria it doesn't meet. I'm still not sure what you mean. Also Ajf is mistaken. It's not about NZSL, it's about NZSL Place Names. These are two different things. Isn't their argument is tantamount to saying there should be only one article about the English language in the encyclopedia. So can they change their view? Kelly222 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Our list guidelines state that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by [multiple secondary, per the general notability guideline] independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. As I've said before, the only source describing NZSL place names as such is a dictionary, which is only a single source and not secondary. (It is true that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability., but I don't believe that any of those apply to this list). You are mistaken about Ajf773, who's referring to the List of New Zealand Town Names. Generally speaking, it is expected that encyclopedic material on a topic is limited to one article on that topic, and as said before a merger with that article, whether it be just town names or all place names, is likely the better course of action. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Nurg (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfect example of listcruft. Schwede 66 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your patience John. I think I'm right about Ajf because they say "The distinction of NZSL is already been covered in an aforementioned article." but I think this is wrong, unless you can help me by showing me the article. In relation to notability I have now learned that lists don't have to be notable. And lists should have informational or development purposes. This article about NZSL Sign Language is definitely informational, but I'm not sure what developmental means in this context. Maybe it means it can develop people's knowledge and education. If this is the meaning then the article serves that purpose. Kelly222 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of notability on your part, and I apologize to the extent that I've contributed to that. We are quite explicit when we say that [n]otability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables, and generally frown upon the production of arbitrary lists. Given the near-unanimity of the consensus to delete, it is quite clear that this list does not appear to meet those guidelines at this time. If you are unable to provide other sources that describe and analyze this topic as a coherent group, then I'm afraid this article will very likely be deleted, all else being irrelevant. Please don't delude yourself and focus on any other arguments for this discussion. (Also FYI, "developmental" refers to internal Wikipedian stuff such as article creation.) Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - John, thanks once more. You proposition that there is near unanimity for delete fails to take account of the discussion subsequent to peoples votes. If their vote is based on wrong information and this has been shown, then if they fail to continue the discussion, this is not right. Also a google search shows there are other sources which applaud this as a "coherent group". I'm sure you can repeat the google search (NZSL "place names"). But here is a second source which should meet your requirement (https://www.odi.govt.nz/nzsl/nzsl-fund/previous-nzsl-fund-rounds/round-1-recipients/geographical-signs/). This source is the NZ Government, so I think it is a very strong and reliable source. I think it is certainly notable if a national government makes such a statement. So given this new information I hope you can change your view now. You also said "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Thank you for explaining developmental, but the informational content remains and is important. Kelly222 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source right there is all you needed to show all along; if there are multiple such sources (the initial dictionary source still doesn't count I'm afraid) then the list can be kept. (I apologize for telling you about that "Lists" sentence, and if you will look closer in the context where I brought it up I expressly state that none of those apply to this list in question; indeed, if it were true virtually any list would be kept by extension of the word "informational", which would trivialize the notability guidelines and is generally not the case; the sooner you disabuse yourself of such notion, and just focus on the sources, the better.) I agree that consensus can be wrong and mistaken arguments are (ideally) not given weight, but none of the arguments in this discussion I would say are mistaken (with the exception of the poor formatting argument). All this boils down to is whether more sources exist in the style you have brought up; it would be tedious and indeed tendentious to focus on anything else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks John. I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence. Does that mean it should now be kept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If and only if more sources can be found. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is another source [33]. Kelly222 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that I haven't had a reply from John and that the article might be deleted at the expiration of the set number of days without further notice. Can someone please explain what's going on? I would like to try to improve the article and the formatting. It needs a table but I don't know how to do that. Kelly222 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the article will be deleted has nothing to do with the state of the article's content, including formatting, but whether you can convince the others that the sourcing available for the topic is adequate for Wikipedia's purposes (I'm personally agnostic towards the second source you've given), which will be decided by the closer (usually an administrator) at the end of the 7 days, although it can be extended (relisted) at the closer's discretion. Here is how you make tables in wiki-markup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks John. I put more info in and put it in a table. Will you please reconsider your vote and change it from agnostic to keep? The source is a government website. I'm not sure of your reasoning if you say that source is insufficient. As to convincing others, they have not responded to my critque of their reasoning, so on that basis this process is flawed. It isn't a discussion on the merits. So I think the article now needs to stay and hope you agree. Kelly222 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is good, I'm glad you have made such improvements. Please find more sources like the first one if you are able, as it appears to be a critical analysis of the topic of NZSL place names; the second one is a poster that describes some of those names and doesn't necessarily state why those would be significant. Once you are confident that you have found as many such sources as you think you reasonably can (and please put them in the article and not here), let me know and I'll have a look; if I think that it warrants broad reconsideration I can ping (notify) the people who have participated in this discussion if you'd like. Do note, however, that if they don't respond their opinions still count to the extent that the discussion closer will see fit (which might not be at all if the sources are good). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least leaning that way. At first I'm not sure what to make of this. Probably many/all editors here would be sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia should support sign language if there is a reasonable way to do so, like we also choose to support vision-impaired people by providing sound bites / recordings of articles. Simply noting which places have a sign language name doesn't seem helpful to anyone though (not that usefulness is a major criterion for what Wikipedia covers). What is the policy about Wikipedia actually including useful stuff, like, say, a link at the Avonhead article to the mini-page that gives a video of the sign language term for Avonhead? This seems to me similar to Wikipedia including little sound clips giving pronunciation of a title, which is often done. Note also that for many place articles, especially for a place where multiple languages are used, and the place has a name in multiple languages, that we often/usually provide the name in each of the languages. For example, for Danzig, the article starts off:
Gdańsk (/ɡəˈdænsk/, also US: /ɡəˈdɑːnsk/, Polish: [ɡdaj̃sk] ; Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig [ˈdantsɪç] ) is a city on the Baltic coast ...

And further, if the identification of places having NZSL names defined is of interest, that can be done by use of a category, e.g. create Category:Places with NZSL names and put that at the bottom of each article like Avonhead. The category can be used for places that are towns and other places too. And, by the way, if it is worth categorizing these, then by wp:CLNT, it is probably worth having a list-article about them, showing with bluelinks all those that have articles, and showing by redlinks ones needing articles, and allowing footnotes and photos and more. About the list-article itself, shouldn't each row contain a link to the specific sign language video about that place? --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe some of the "delete" voters are just seeing this as a non-standard list-article somehow. The topic of NZSL placenames seems notable to me, based on just the first source referred to. Maybe move the article to the title NZSL placenames, and give a bit of an intro, then provide the list. --Doncram (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have suggested a potential merger with the main NZ place list article; a merger with the NZSL article is also possible, as would be a dispersal of such content to each place name's article if existent. What would you think about such a merger? I myself will have to mull over this potential information more; also, please note that CLNT only permits such duplication without requiring or even encouraging it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of towns in New Zealand. Certainly of interest, and given that NZSL is an official language in NZ, certainly worth saving, especially is our aim is to be inclusive (there's enough systemic bias on the project without deleting articles such as this one). I'm not convinced it can survive as a stand-alone list, however. The other option might be to transwiki it to one of the other projects. Note - if kept, it will need an extensive tidy up - at the moment it's a shambles. Grutness...wha? 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey, there is something really positive and valuable here, while AFD is an unfortunately horrible/meant/cruel/stultifying/awful/negative/destructive venue that is not well matched to teasing out what can/should be done. I !voted "Keep" but not very strongly above, and am more sure now that this work and/or ideas around it should clearly be saved for Wikipedia. I think this AFD should be closed "Keep" for now, with admonition to get stuff sorted out better, and with delivery of a Nobel peace prize to Kelly222 for getting it started. And referral to whatever office of WMF deals with accessibility issues and to whatever WikiProjects and GLAM subprojects or whatever else can/should be involved constructively in capturing/developing good stuff here, with parties getting set up to work with the NZSL community and the copyright owners of the NZSL dictionary initiative.

About using mini-videos of signs at each NZ place article, I am pretty sure that is a great thing to do. Implementing it well requires more skills than just Kelly22 and I have. For example, some tiny icon needs to be found or designed to be used in an attractive/meaningful minilink, like the little link thingees for pronunciation recordings in the top of the Danzig article. The design needs to either link externally to the minivideo for each place available at the NZSL dictionary, or, probably better, arrangements should be made to import all of the separate videos in some format to Commons, or for new minivideos to be produced, funded by a grant if necessary. There needs to be some guideline about which articles get these new NZSL links: certainly NZ place names are naturally included, but not all place names worldwide, and probably some other NZ-specific foods, songs, monuments, other NZ cultural matters.

About formatting of the list-article, there is much to improve, but that does not need to be sorted at AFD. It is clear to me that Kelly222's first attempt with it was a good effort, but they appear not to be familiar with list formatting and the potential of what lists can do. I made some edits to introduce a column title row, to begin a column providing links to the actual specific NZSL sign videos instead of just asserting they exist and leaving it to the reader to look them up in the dictionary, and began wikilinking the place names themselves. It is not clear to me what is the default/current ordering, because it has several long alphabetical sequences but keeps restarting without any clarity what those are. To me it seems obvious there should be a full alphabetical ordering of English language names as one option, ordering by Maori names, and some ordering by size of cities/towns and geography (i.e. group them by north island vs. south island etc., leading off with the biggest cities and working down to remote places, or working from north to south, or similarly). In the draft, there was confusing usage of 5 or more separate rows for "Auckland" alone, widely separated in the non-sortable list, which all were identical, conveying that there are 5 or more different NZSL signs for it, but not providing the signs, when IMHO all the 5 signs ought to be provided in just one merged row. And there are several more towns having pairs or trios of signs, which rows need to be merged. And there probably should be a column for, or a "Notes" column should be used for, explaining the NZSL naming strategy for each sign. Like there should be info/commentary about the signs themselves: what is the literal translation i.e. is this one a combo of signs for "large" and for "rock" plus a pouring-a-pitcher-of-water motion and why is that the derivation, how is this one a sign used primarily by the older adult community, who invented this one clever sign and when, and the like, with detailed sourcing.

About outright deletion, that should be off the table. At a minimum, the list-article is good and needed as a WikiProject workpage towards addressing all the separate NZ articles.

About sourcing and properness of a list, i think this can be improved. The good "first source" is fine, and I think there must exist papers and studies and teaching materials about the NZSL place names, for example organizing them by strategy of naming (like how the sign for "Christchurch is "C-C", i.e. two letter "C"s in a row, and like how some are "sounds like" clues, and some are based on the Maori name of a place, and so on). The list can include notes with footnotes about that kind of stuff, and possibly be sortable by naming strategy or other typing of the signs themselves. This is too much to be addressed immediately during this AFD. Cleanup and improvement is needed, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Note we do have list-articles labelled as glossaries, such as a glossary of architectural terms, and there are other precedents for how this can be re-packaged a bit. There are higher policy level concerns here, rising up to the worldwide WMF level, which should not be short-changed by a few uninformed-on-these-kind-of-matters random editors at AFD.

Warning to anyone tempted to close this as "Delete": if you do that, I think you should be, will likely be, ridiculed for being a horrible ambassador of Wikipedia towards to the deaf community. Think Clint Eastwood: "make my day". Like whoever removed all female writers out of the category of American writers, to put them only into a lesser subcategory, which was once an incredibly poorly handled political matter. I see news articles and blogs and twitter campaigns and discussion on The View and other talk shows blasting you, in your near future. :) (Okay, I mean this lightly, not as a threat that I would be involved in carrying out, but still.)

Bottom-line: This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia can be great for, can be great about, and removing this list-article rather than giving some encouragement and TLC to it would be a great mistake. With some simple first-level cleanup, which I am myself willing to do, this is absolutely fine and good as a list-article in mainspace Wikipedia. With some kind of later second-level improvement I sincerely believe that it can/will be a learned/scholarly great contribution, taking advantage of Wikipedia list features, Wikipedia editors' creativity, and what the great NZSL community has to offer and is probably willing/wanting to share/integrate better into the biggest/best encyclopedia of the world. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow users to engage with the lengthy "keep" arguments; the "delete" opinions appear rather cursory to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium, Rsfinlayson, Ajf773, Nurg, and Schwede66: I'm pinging the people who !voted delete on this to help them engage with the new arguments as they see fit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My delete vote firmly stands as I mentioned earlier, the content is already expressed on another article. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a directory, and the addition of NZSL external links to the article doesn't give the article any more encyclopedic value. There is always one editor who writes an essaylike reason in a a valiant effort to retain an article, we should not be swayed by the length of arguments. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I withdraw my earlier suggestion that the list be merged into List of towns in New Zealand as the list now contains links to videos/diagrams which would be unsuitable for that article. I think the current list might be more appropriate to be hosted at a site such as www.nzsl.nz, as it is essentially a list of NZSL dictionary entries. I would welcome external links to such an externally hosted list from the List of towns in New Zealand and the article New Zealand Sign Language.-gadfium 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Timtempleton below advises us that the externally hosted list exists, so I have firmed up my position to delete.-gadfium 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this. Ajf773 is wrong. The content is not in the other article which I explained above. Kelly222 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The List of towns in New Zealand already denotes which towns are covered by the NZSL list. This list not only non-notable, it's a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the arguments made since I earlier voted for deletion. I note that the format of the article has improved greatly, and that in the tabulated form new columns of info have been added. I note the passion of supporters of the article. However, I still think the article is not notable and should be deleted. Nurg (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the lede did a better job of explaining why this is worthy of being kept, the info is already being maintained at [[34]], and this seems to be unnecessarily redundant. As an extreme way of making this point, it would be similar if someone wanted to create a list called "list of films displayed at Rotten Tomatoes" or at IMDB. A template, like Template:NYSE American, but linking to the video on the www.nzsl.nz site would be a more scalable and effective way of sharing this info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:48, 16 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 Bikram Choudhury. After two relists, a consensus that the article should be a Redirect to Bikram Choudhury, given that the appropriate content has already been merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajashree Choudhury[edit]

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

No significant coverage and all mentions are in RS(s) are for being the wife of Bikram Choudhury and esp. stemming from their divorce. See WP:INHERITED. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite so; she is notable for winning both the first Indian National Yoga Championship and the first Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup; she is also notable for co-founding the United States Yoga Federation (USA Yoga) and the International Yoga Sports Federation (IYSF); so her notability is not solely based on her former husband (Bikram Choudhury). I'd have thought these four claims would be sufficient for a Keep, but if not then a Merge to BC's article would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the exact heck is Indian National Yoga Championship? Who organizes the competition? Google shows me near-absolutely nothing and sources, that proclaims the notability of the championship, are welcome.
This NYT piece literally describes everything about IYSF as well as USYF, a country-affiliate of the former. Two of the gazillion NGOs who have made a lucrative business of yoga and universal opinion is that they were founded by the husband-wie duo to promote Bikram Yoga and that it has precisely zero relevance outside of their well-maintained cult. Also, this. ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too many "heck"s and "near-absolutely"s and "gazillion"s for an orderly discussion, really: they are quite unnecessary. However, the competition is, as the article says, the National Yoga Championship held by the Yoga Federation of India from 1979, so I'd have thought that more than clear enough already; it's also covered in the more reliable parts of the Indian press. Where I do agree with you is that RC seems to have functioned very closely as an adjunct of her husband during the marriage, and since it seems she won the competition(s) she founded, that in itself is worth noting in a paragraph of his article (remarkable, actually), implying a MERGE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an independent source or two, behind her's winning the National Yoga championship, held by YFI and the first Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup ? ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious places (India, her own/Bikram Yoga sites) are all flaky or dependent. The [Daily Telegraph] mentions she is the "five-time winner of the All-India Yoga Championship between 1979 to 1983", i.e. every year from 1979 to 1983. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bikram Choudhury as per Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:100F:D239:FCBE:9AB7:1349:90BD (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bikram Choudhury. I am not seeing notability in the sources presented. Doing well in a non-notable competition mentioned in passing, and being married to a notable person, are not sufficient. There is no need to merge, as the subject is already discussed in enough detail in the target article. BD2412 T 15:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've added it there since this began. A redirect is indeed all that remains to be put in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Taborin Technical School Foundation, Inc.[edit]

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

I've gone searching and despite the contention of the order's main web site I can't shake the impression that this community in Davao City and its school have ceased to exist. The Facebook page being abandoned for 18 months and the domain name registration having expired certainly justify some suspicion. Yes, there are reviews on the Google Maps listing as recently as a month ago but none with any text content for a year and even those are unconvincing. As a die-hard Inclusionist I hate instigating these proceedings, but passing by and doing nothing sat worse with me. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar 🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar 🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — ⚞ ℛogueScholar 🐈 ₨🗩 ⚟ 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. If they existed once, they can be the subject of an article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A one-sentence article sourced only to a dead URL does not appear to be worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion due to changes to the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, mere existence is explicitly not sufficient for an article on a school. Searches for sources return database/directory listings. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not conmvinced they ever existed- sounds like a scam- but we will never know. ClemRutter (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know with you guys why you call this a scam without ever researching thouroughly about it. But yeah, you never knew it is an actual school in Davao City, Philippines. I revamped it and I even suggest to change the name since I reckon no one knows it as "Gabriel Taborin Technical School Foundation" but rather known locally as "Gabriel Taborin College of Davao Foundation" but that's another issue. Researched on this without even touching their Facebook page. Talk about pride in making research. Worth keeping. Read on the revisions. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of your edits to the article have been revision deleted for copyright... Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know. Actually, I was struck fast of copyright since I felt too lazy to paraphrase that time. It's up now though. So, what's your vote?—Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Eastmain. Also, I found a few sources [35], [36], [37], [38], which state the school's existence. _SUPER ^ASTIG 15:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 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 Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article, and redirects (following a merge) are cheap. BD2412 T 05:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillotine (character)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Marvel Contest of Champions#Comic book adaptation. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comic fancruft with PRIMARY sources + mentions in passing only, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though a little weak). Keep because GNG is satisfied, but weak because she's pretty minor. I remember trying to sort out what came first, the game or the comic since that was the initial reasoning for having an article by @Arnabdas:. Doesn't seem like Arnabdas is active recently to chime in, but regardless, I think there's enough out there outside of the game (even if not in the article) to say that reception for the character does WP:NEXIST. For example:
ComicsVerse was intrigued to see more of her, and found her fascinating with the way she was weaved into history.
Another review was interested to know where the author would take the character after the setup and unique story.
AIPT praised the art/design of the character (and artwork is half of comics), as did Newsarama who especially praised the coloring. AIPT also found her story "efficient and interesting" given only a few pages, while Newsarama was more critical of her story, though criticism is still GNG material.
Bottom line, my vote is not to delete. I don't think a merge/redirect is unreasonable, but I don't know where, that discussion can be handled on the talk page by the appropriate project(s) outside AfD. -2pou (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual trivia. Fails GNG.Kacper IV (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that based on the current state of the article or your review of discovered sources above? -2pou (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet more fancruft. Not enough in-depth coverage from RS to show notability. Of the sources mentioned above by 2pou, 3 are clearly not reliable sources, and the fourth, comicsverse.com I'm not so sure about either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onel5969: if you don't feel that the articles help, that is fine, but I did want to respond to the statement that 3 are clearly not reliable sources. Of the 3, I might concede Geeked Out Nation, but the other two should be considered Reliable (despite their illustrious names). I did include the Geeked Out Nation review since there is at least an editor and the reviewer was someone else, but this site has now died and been replaced.
  For the other two though, Adventures in Poor Taste has quite a large editorial team, and their reviews are cited quite often across Film, Anime/Manga, and Comics WikiProjects. There is an archived discussion that felt the site is overall reliable here: [39]. I'd say something like a /Film/Screen Rant/Collider
  And Newsarama... well, that is the one I really wanted to point out to you. They have an awesome name, I know, but they are one of the most used sources for comics material out there. I would probably equate sites like Newsarama, CBR, and Bleeding Cool as three of the most referenced sites similar to the Hollywood trades Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood, especially with such wonderful reporting that comes from Deadline such as this. Newsarama even won an Eisner award for their journalism in the industry. Yes, this is a much smaller niche industry than Hollywood, but it is respected in the industry.
  Again, your opinion is your opinion, I just wanted to respectfully point this out in case you participate if many more comics related discussions, and since I noticed you are a new page reviewer. -2pou (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the usual PLOT and trivial appearances info. I have no objection to see this character added to a character list (and 2pou's sources could be added there), but it's not apparent from the article or the article's infobox/nav-template what (if any) character list might be appropriate. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. I would perhaps not be opposed a slightly better article leaning on decent sources, but, for now, this content is probably better kept in the list. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical, non-notable, GNG-failing Marvel-cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schneider (designer)[edit]

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

This article has no info about the designer. It is about his grandfather and uncles. The designer appears to have won some obscure industry-specific (possibly paid) awards, but no indication of WP:BIO or WP:GNG except for a few publicity pieces. Toddst1 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most one shop jewelry designers are not notable. Mark clearly is not, and his grandfather and uncles seem to not be either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a diamond in the rough. Coverage found in a search consisted of name checks or trivial mentions of his company.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibong Adarna gown of Catriona Gray[edit]

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

Absolute fancruft. Article about a dress that got some attention confined solely to the beauty pageant community. Absolutely non-notable for its own standalone article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:21, 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 keep. Clear consensus to keep. If anyone wants to put the sources inside the article, that would be nice. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jones Jr.[edit]

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

Stumbled across this one - I don't have the knowledge to be absolutely sure, but it's been marked as possibly not notable since 2010. I can find coverage but it's always linked to the Dallas Cowboys, so I wonder if any relevant info about Jones should be included in that article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in really bad shape, but a quick search does turn up some significant coverage that could be used to improve the article: (1) Jones following his family's footsteps into Hall, Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/22/19; (2) Jerry Jones Jr., 3/3/08, Street & Smith's Sports Business Journal; (3) 5 things you might not know about Jerry Jones Jr., including how his dad saved Super Bowl 19 for him, The Dallas Morning News, 6/11/18. Cbl62 (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding sources all over the place supporting passage of WP:GNG. Certainly the article content needs to be brought up to that same level, but the subject matter itself clearly passes notability threshold. Although the article is stubby, that is fixable. Let's not confuse stub status with non-notability. In my view, this is a case where editing is the answer, not deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the sportsbusinessdaily borders celebrity gossip. Don't know if the junior's notability would be considered significant and in-depth coverage about him. Graywalls (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't had the time to review the sources and do a full-blown WP:GNG analysis on this, but I can already tell you that absolutely no one should be voting "delete" on this. At the very least, this is definitely worth a redirect to Jerry Jones#Personal_life where the subject of this article is mentioned. Anyone voting "delete" here has failed to consider alternatives to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Really not convinced he deserves an article, though Paul McDonald if you want to clean it up maybe something can be made of it. But as of now it seems a merge to his father's page is the best outcome. There are some sources online but not a lot substantial. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additional sources Cbl found and his induction into the 2019 Arkansas Sports Hall of fame, which resulted in some additional coverage that gets this over GNG. Nole (chat·edits) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's sufficient media coverage, but the article really needs to be beefed up. In addition to the ones above, there's [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] and [[43]]. With the last one, the fact that a car accident where he was just a passenger made international news suggests that he easily passes the notability threshold. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to say WP:NOTINHERITED however I have found that the subject meets WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources available. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 16 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 08:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Pollock[edit]

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

Fails GNG. As mentioned by multiple editors on the talk page, there’s a dearth of significant coverage by secondary reliable sources on this person. A Google search fails to find any mention of this person as well. Transcendence (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Transcendence (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a failed attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion. All sources availlable are primary sources from the person's personal website or interviews/self published articles. Michepman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This has the look and feel of a paid promo. No significant coverage of the subject can be found. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing on this is weak, mostly leads back to non-reliable promotional sites or brief mentions. No serious coverage, fails WP:GNG.Bonewah (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with above editors, promotional, no significant coverage, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 14 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 08:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Büthker[edit]

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

no appaent notability outside of his company DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is ostensibly an advert masquerading as a BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, per nom. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so a "redirect" to GKN (that article needs to be edited to reflect the ceo change?) is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NSCHOOL. Over 14 years ago this article survived an AFD with an overwhelming majority !voting various wording of "Keep and cleanup". 424 revisions with 157 editors and the only reference is a dead link and apparently "External links" for sourcing. In 2017 it was determined that notability and ORG was a determining factor for an article as there is no inherent notability. The article has substantial size that is actually indicative that there could be a whole lot of WP:original research. This is hard to disprove because there are no references so no inline citations. Otr500 (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked again at the guidelines, I have read the article and Googled the school. This AfD is just vexatious. Google provides 224,000 results. One of them "SSP Profiles 2018/2019 Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School". SSP2018. Retrieved 23 November 2019. , independant of the school could verify almost all of the article- a sort of HK-GIAS site. For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it. There is a dead link- just go to the site index."Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School". www.blmcss.edu.hk. Retrieved 23 November 2019. it is all still there. Note that is a primary source.ClemRutter (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that because an article is long it must involve OR is ludicrous. I scan read the site I mentioned- and found no copyvios, before that is claimed. This is average length article for a B standard following WPSCH/AG.

That 159 editors (sorry 160) have contributed does prove some sort of notability in its self. It is the only Baptist School in Sha Tin with a unique spiritual offer. ClemRutter (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site "SSP2018" contains "The school information is provided and vetted by schools.". This is absolutely not "independent of the school" so I am not sure why this would be stated as fact. Listing that "Google provides 224,000 results" does not prove anything. I searched a high school I am familiar with and it returned "About 2,610,000 results (0.61 seconds)". WP:WPSCH/AG (an essay) does state in the "Notability" section "Wikipedia decides whether a school is notable enough for a stand-alone article by assessing, if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When something is challenged stating "For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it.", becomes a moot point. Verifiability is a policy and states All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. Further information on schools and notability can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. I am sure, since you are listed as a coordinator, you already know most of this though.

Here is a suggestion: Instead of becoming frustrated or asserting that comments on so much unsupported contented being possible OR is ludicrous, pick three of the "204,000" reported Google hits, that are actually reliable and independent sources, and add them to the article. Of course since there are the supposedly "204,000" sources there should be enough to provide ample references and lots of inline citations. Since I couldn't find them it would be a big help and certainly a Hey. Anything short of that would be paramount to just claiming but I like it! as it does currently fail WP:NSHOOL and\or Wikipedia:ORG. Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google result is nothing. Sometimes it just inflated by mirror site or junk or just plain wrong from their web API. If among "204,000" results there are some WP:RS that have in-depth coverage, it is worth to keep. If all the result are from facebook social network or content farm or just routine mention, it is not worth to keep it. Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 鄭志珩 (2015-05-18). "呂明才中學校長帶學生墳場反思". Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-12-01. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
2. 金楠; 傑富, eds. (2013). "浸信會呂明才中學". 升中選校王2014 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: zh:萬里機構. p. 206. ISBN 978-962-14-5159-0. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
3. "市民不滿校方邀黃之鋒呂明才：應尊重學校專業自主". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2015-01-29. Archived from the original on 2019-12-01. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
4. "浸聯會3中小學未為校友校董註冊最長持續一年合法性恐成疑". Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2019-04-18. Archived from the original on 2019-12-01. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
5. 黎忞 (2017-05-23). "【得獎感言】劉百滔（浸信會呂明才中學）：毛遂自薦勇增值蟬聯最佳發言人". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2017-06-10. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, one source is an interview of the principal , which is between primary and secondary source? Another one is about a student of that school (and also an interview), which nothing in detail for that school. Another one is about an event related to the overseer of the school, Hong Kong Baptist Convention, fails to register the list of directors. So the school itself is routinely mentioned. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added sources and content to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Based on no in-depth source. Unless people form a new consensus that wiki article about school can have full or routine information only. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This school analysis site give adequate in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. "Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School ‒ HKDSE information @ Big Exam". dse.bigexam.hk. Retrieved 9 December 2019. The bar is that we have to ascertain there exists two or possibly one in-depth source- this one goes into great depth. Pass. ClemRutter (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly bigexam.hk not a reliable source. Any "metric" site for HK secondary schools were not reliable and dubious COI as possible ransom to the school by asking them to pay for a better scores. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milin Dokthian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still the same issues: The subject has no personal work outside the band; no major roles in films, tv shows, etc; no significant contribution in any entertainment field; and no established notability that warrants a stand-alone article; thus her article should either be deleted or redirected to List of BNK48 members according to WP:MUSICBIO. --Miwako Sato (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milin has participated in the film "Where We Belong" as Pahn. You can check out the photo gallery of the movie containing images of her in the movie and at the press release on IMDb (I've already put that on the article page as well) ^[1]. Also, there is another movie waiting to release next year as well. And from what we know, her role is not insignificant at all. This falls under WP:ARTIST and she also has quite a number of fans, as you can see from the number of her followers on social media accounts such as Instagram and Facebook. In addition, she is a lone brand ambassador of Buriram United and has got a lot of attention from the media because she is not just first brand ambassador of the team but also of any team in the league, as I've cited news, interviews, and articles from various news agencies and the club's website itself in the article. If you need any Thai translation of the news/article, feel free to send me the link to that news/article and I can translate it for you. SamakarN1820 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
  1. All the films were created by her own band, in which she co-starred with her fellow members of the band, and all of her roles are merely supporting, and none of the roles have gained any significant coverage in the media, have been nominated for an award, etc.
  2. Having many of followers on social media accounts is nothing. A person does not gain an article in an encyclopedia just because the person's social media accounts are followed by many people. Moreover, the term "many" may be an exaggeration in her case, because she only has 524k followers on her IG account and 266k on her FB account.
  3. Also, the role as a Buriram football club ambassador was obtained on account of her being a member of BNK48, not because of her being her.
  4. This is unlike her fellow member Cherprang Areekul, who can have a separate article on Wikipedia because of significant and independent roles outside the band as described in the article, amongst other reasons.
  5. So, her article should be deleted or redirected to the article List of BNK48 members in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO.
--Miwako Sato (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep -~~ Comment: The third point is not entirely true though. The club's vice marketing director has once mentioned that "We wanted to make a collaboration between BNK48 and the club, but not with other members, just Namneung only" (please check out the interview video on Youtube, search for "Bureview บุรีวิว EP.4 : Buriram United Spark ร่วมงานจับมือให้กำลังใจ "น้องน้ำหนึ่ง BNK48"" since I couldn't link YouTube links here, and the interview part starts from 4:45). So the reason she was selected isn't just that she is a member of the group, right? Or else the team would have 6 or 16 members representing the team now, like other brands that hire BNK48 members as their presenters/ambassadors. Moreover, in WP:ENT, point number 2: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." - how large is this anyway? There is a fanbase group for Namneung called "Milinland" as well (watch the same video a bit further towards the end and you'll see the same person mentioning about "Milin family", which refers to the very same group of fan. If you said that she has only 524k followers on her IG account and 266k likes on her FB account, how large should this be to satisfy the standards? I need you to make a clarification on this. SamakarN1820 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10495912/mediaindex?refine=nm9987518&ref_=ttmi_ref_nm

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viz.ai[edit]

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

Classic startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. Refs are run of the mill business news, press releases. scope_creep^Talk 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are many reliable sources and the subject is notable. No reason that I can see for pouncing on a new entry and tagging it with (two!) deletion notices..Geewhiz (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Geewhiz I'm surprised and will explain it to you. I will go through each of the first 10 references and explain why they are dodgy and unacceptable. The first reference must prove and should prove the article is notable, but it doesn't here. None of them do. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, there are some press releases, but Jerusalem Post, Forbes, Calcalist and Globes are all reliable sources.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the Jerusalem Post it states: “It’s about getting the right doctor to the right patient at the right time, just in time to make a difference,” Viz.ai co-founder and CTO David Golan told The Jerusalem Post. so it is an press release/interview, primary and can't be used to establish notability as it fails WP:ORGIND. Looking at the rest: Calcalist, it is press release discussing funding. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes one is an X of Y article. Forbes produces 1571 of these articles every year and they are considered non-notable by reliable sources. It is Non-rs as well. The fourth discusses two businesses merging on a business web news site. It run of the mill business news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search for Medtronic Partners with Viz.ai, it's bring up several other sites, e.g. [44]] indicates it is also a press release. For sure it fail WP:ORGIND. All indicative of a new startup that is advertising heavy to advance its growth and confirming it subject as not suitable as it fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact when you look at all of them, it is the same press release that has been sent to at least 22 separate news sites. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 2 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 02:48, 8 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. Existing references fail the test for Independent Content and are entirely based on PR, announcements and interviews/quotations with company execs, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale of the High King. Not enough here for our general notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 20:22, 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 no consensus. After two relists, there was no consensus to Delete, but no strong consensus in any other direction; the AfD was not helped by a confusing nom with no clear rationale/direction of their own (and who did not participate further in the AfD post nom); no prejudice to a future re-list or possible Merge. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raita algorithm[edit]

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

The tuning only goes into the comparison loop, something already covered by BMH's inter-implementation variations. (I actually *had* to do it for BMH to account for the variations in implementations.) Artoria 2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Artoria 2e5 🌉 11:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not sure what the nominator means but I don’t see a delete rationale here. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the argument is that it's just a trivial variation on something else and doesn't deserve an article of its own. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Longer term maybe merge/redirect or maybe Wikibooks .. ie it sems credible alternatives to deletions exist, but we shouldn't persue them in in such a way to disrupt the target. If we can source and execute a non disruptive merge or target anchor area improvement+redirect(W History) with non disruptive mention and description of target then I'd be up for than but we are sort of relying on noms. opinion here (which I confess way well be correct).Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Boyer–Moore–Horspool algorithm. The information should not be deleted... there are quite a few peer-reviewed journals that mention the Raita algorithm. DavidDelaune (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 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 02:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 13 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. Not all sources demonstrate notability and there is a consensus here that while sources exist about this album they do not demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Into Life[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for artist or album. The 65 Google hits[45] reveal no good reliable source giving significant attention to this record. The best would be a very short "review" in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel[46]. Fram (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - oppose/keep This article has been in good standing, and approved by other editors since its creation 3 years ago. Though the artist is not that well known in the US (with the exception of Southern California), he has a presence in Asia[47], South America[48][49], and parts of Europe[50][51].

Below please find additional reliable sources for artist and album notability:

Album & Artist listed on industry standard Allmusic[52]
Release date on Pause & Play[53]
Legitimate music blog album review[54]
Another music blog[55]
Artist and Album listed in MTV Italy[56]
Artist is a band member of notable band Hautewerk [57]
Performance at KUCI 88.9 FM[58]
Interview and performance at Laguna Beach's FM93.5[59]
Performance at the OC Fair[60]
Headlining performance in Nanyang, China[61]
Festival news coverage[62]
Album listed as produced by Ed Stasium (Ramones, Talking Heads, Living Color, Mick Jagger)[63]

Highfifan (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Most of these give no notability, as they are not reliable sources, or simple listings of the artist without actual commentary (Allmusic, Pause and Play), or reprints of press releases (the text of the Chinese blog[64] is the same as another one you list[65], "Tom set out to craft a diverse and accomplished record that will please rock fans of all backgrounds" and so on). The "presence in Europe" is an announcement of a concert he would give in a café[66] on sites where everyone can announce events, not an indication of actual notability or success. The same applies to South America; it's a concert in a café in Santiago de Chile. Fram (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Fram, why are you so intent in getting this deleted, when the article has been in good standing since its creation three years ago, and has been reviewed, worked on and improved by eight other editors? The artist is still a current member of a notable band (Hautewerk), and the album in question was produced and mixed by a very notable, multi-platinum, grammy-winning producer (Ed Stasium). Highfifan (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That he is a member of Hautewerk has received next to no attention at all[67]. The same goes for the contribution of Stasium. For some reason, Tom Ricci (and this album) just haven't received the attention required to have an article here. The "eight other editors" don't seem to have contributed any actual information, just technical cleanup of the article. Not everyone looks at articles with an eye to its notability. Fram (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - keep had to see what is gained by removing this good web summary of the work and its connections to other creators --Artlung (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I want more policy-based keeps here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the above argument, the nominator (Fram) comes out on top. This album has indeed been listed in many places, including AllMusic, but it has not been covered in those sources beyond mere introductions to its existence. The article's statement on radio airplay is unsupported and has also been avoided by the commenters above. I can find absolutely no reliable media notice on the album to satisfy the requirements at WP:NALBUM. All other sources found, including those listed by commenters above, are mentions in unreliable blogs and many are about the musician rather than the album. A Wikipedia article on Tom Ricci might be viable, and then this album's existence can be briefly mentioned there. But until that happens, there is little to no reason for this album to have its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Album release announced in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (part of the USA Today Network) [68] Highfifan(talk) 18:44, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blount County Rescue Squad[edit]

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

NN non-profit organization. There is some coverage in local community newspapers. The article has been tagged for notability for five years and still has no references other than its own website. Does not meet WP:NORG. MB 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MB 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP the article needs an editor not deletion. City of Alcoa, Priority Ambulance, Knox News, The Daily Times Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related/non-independent sources do not count towards notability. And WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" MB 19:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of RS out there. I had other things to do so I did not keep going. Also there is not a requirement that coverage go beyond local/regional. Just that it be Reliable. WP:N The subject meets GNG and therefore ORG is trumped. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The History Channel has produced a feature about them and that's not local news; it's an international channel. Andrew D. (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't news at all. It was an entertainment show called "Rescue Trucks" that was part of "Ford's Truck Weekend in America" and according to a blurb about the episode, "true to its name, 'Rescue Trucks' largely focused on the trucks BCRS uses to respond to accidents". Per WP:ORGDEPTH, "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Still no in-depth/significant coverage of the organization. MB 01:16, 23 November 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 05:01, 30 November 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 02:39, 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. I would recommend that a bit of time be given to the article before another deletion nomination, to let those editors who believe the article can be improved with reliable sources do so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra Menarini[edit]

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

This biography of a living person is unsourced in English. It was tagged for BLP PROD by another editor in 2016; this was declined on the basis that the version of the article in Italian does have sources. However, I do not see that the sources in Italian meet en.wiki standards for a biographical article. I don't see what's reliable about any of them. —S Marshall T/C 12:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i sourced the 2 main reasons of Iskra Menarini relevance: her cooperation with lucio Dalla, one of the most important Italian pop artists, and her participation in the 2009 Sanremo festival.--Pampuco (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited from Lucio Dalla or the Sanremo Festival, though.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 2 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 02:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources seem to be not about her, but about Dalla. Notability not established, and we shuldn't keep a largely unsourced BLP around. Sandstein 11:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the information in the article, it seems that this musician may meet WP:MUSICBIO#6: "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". She certainly was a "reasonably prominent member" of Lucio Dalla's group, being his vocalist for 24 years, including on a single, Attenti al lupo [it], that was No 1 for 4 weeks in 1990/91. She was also vocalist with Samuele Bersani, Vasco Rossi, Raffaella Carrà, and others, on albums/singles at least some of which also reached the top 10. The article now has sources. It certainly needs editing, and it would be good if someone could find the offline sources used in the Italian article, and indeed find other offline sources, but she does appear notable. I will try to edit the article and add citations for as much information as possible from online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:47, 16 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. After two AfDs in close succession with a total of four relists, there is no consensus to Delete, and although an acknowledged borderline case, there has been an increasing lean to Keep. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Football International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy renomination after the first AfD failed due to low participation. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Currently has seven references: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are passing mentions and/or focus more on Footy 9s rather than its parent organisation. 3 is more in-depth but is just a run-of-the-mill low-circulation local newspaper article profiling a local. 7 is borderline but makes such a blatant factual error in the first sentence (claiming Footy 9s is an AFL expansion format - it's not at all affiliated with the league) I'm doubtful it's reliable. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As in the previous AfD discussion, I think there is enough here to scrape WP:GNG and given the existence of both Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup it makes sense to have an article on the organisation. Melcous (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough to just meet GNG. This AfD should probably be closed purely for the reason that it is improper to relist straight away - the closing administrator relisted the discussion twice so more than an adequate opportunity was given for others to participate. Bookscale (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically consulted with the closing administrator prior to opening this to check whether speedy renomination was appropriate. Keep !voters so far have not identified precisely which sources constitute a GNG pass. – Teratix ₵ 05:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Teratix and Melcous.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Teratix hasn't voted for keeping the article? Bookscale (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been tired, I meant to say you Bookscale.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for clarifying. Bookscale (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence that there is a pass of GNG here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 3 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 02:35, 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 keep. Tone 08:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harker, Florida[edit]

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

Town does not seem to exist. The provided location covers a farm and a swamp, and no buildings, and I have found no references to the place, it is not in any US Census databases. Article has no content other than describing the town's supposed phyical location. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. dmartin969 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence it's an actual populated place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW, the USGS calls this place a U6 unincorporated community (295336) per map data compilations as of 1976–1981. The coordinates match the GNIS database, but the nominator's assessment of the map view is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS database cites the USGS topo map Sunniland, which displays Harker in its 1958 map, but WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." An Information Circular I can't read all of may suggest it was the name of an oil well. Without substantive coverage or perhaps a historic post office, there is no notability for this as an article and certainly nothing sustaining the negligent production of pages saying "Harker is an unincorporated community". Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've shown recently articles cited to the GNIS alone do not pass WP:GEOLAND #1, and my online searches only bring up people named Harker in Florida. Fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While I would have said Delete based on everything above, from the topo map it looked to me that this was a stop on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. Searching on that & Harker led me to this book which said Harker was a community "known for its squash, potatoes, and large tomatoes. It was mostly home to farm workers who road the daily train south to various work sites". According to the index, it looks like there is more on pages not available in the google book snippet. I'm convinced this was an actual populated place at one time. Page 202 of this book says Harker is one of at least 15 communities in a contiguous 40-mile line that are now gone.MB 05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the official US gazetteer from 1992, but I think that's similar or equivalent to the GNIS database as it listed subdivisions as populated places. I've done several very specific newspaper searches and it never gets mentioned. It's on Google Maps, but the two closest buildings to the point have Immokalee city addresses. A historic aerial photo search possibly shows up to two buildings in 1952, but no mention of the buildings on the 1959 topo map. Interestingly the place continues to appear on the 2015 topo map. Do you have any idea what years it would have been populated? SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page or two on the community in the book. If someone had a hard-copy we would have a lot more info. But the railroad was built circa 1921. It was abandoned in the 80s, but most of it south of Harker was abandoned in the mid-50s. So my guess is that the peak popoulation was in the 30s-40s. MB 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MB.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 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 04:55, 30 November 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 02:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MB. While defunct it does appear to have been a real place and clearly passes WP:GNG Michepman (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTEMP. Thanks User:MB for your diligence. Lightburst (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, since this article was nominated it has been improved with sources that reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 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. Tone 08:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Castro[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable entertainment figure. Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Castro has had a few starring roles, e.g. Assumed Killer - Radio Times, Killer Island, Boyfriend Killer - LA Times, (same again), so despite much significant coverage jumping out of a Google search, arguably could satisfy WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). --Michig (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Radio Times doesn't seem to confer much notability calling the "Assumed Killer" movie "a slow-moving and uneventful mystery thriller". There's a link in the article to a source about Eric Castro's wife. The problem there is that I can't figure out, after reading the article, who Eric Castro is. Poorly sourced, poorly written. If this was written by a paid editor, somebody should ask for their money back. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NACTOR, as implied by Michig above. The current state of the article is not a valid reason for deletion. Quality of the fils she appeared in ()as seen be critics0 is also not relevant, as long as they were significant films, or she got significant coverage for her roles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While the state or our article is very poor, I'm commenting on the notability or significance of the films she's been in (quite doubtful) and the notability or significance of her roles in them (quite doubtful). Just because a source commented on a film and said e.g. "this is a piece of garbage" doesn't make it a significant film - often it's quite the opposite. If our article links to a source that implies the subject is mainly known for being "Eric Castro's wife," and I don't know who Eric Castro is, that tell's me that the wife is likely not notable either. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The is some minor coverage (mostly about films) but the evidence is it doesn't actor pass WP:NACTOR. Instead very very early career, not much at all. Completed six roles, two of which has been acting and only started acting May 2018. First role in films was 2013 was as producer. They're shorts and TV films. Coverage is fairly low quality puff. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. I don't event WP:TOOSOON applies.scope_creep^Talk 22:43, 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. No prejudice against including this character on a list or creating a redirect, but there was no consensus for that in this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrod[edit]

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

Minor fictional character. Lacks substantial in-universe significance and in-depth discussion in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is telling when most of the Google search results are for a corporation that shares the same name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another minor background character in Tolkien's work. Not all named characters are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minor character.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be a free-standing article with so few decent secondary sources, but a merge/redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves may not hurt. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 14 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.

[1] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt10495912/mediaindex?refine=nm9987518&ref_=ttmi_ref_nm

[1]