Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 December 10 December >

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. The article has been changed several times but the consensus this does not belong in article space remains. Draft is an option, but only if an acceptable article can be made and the pile on of deletes at the end suggests this isn't the best option. With the COI arguments raised here the case for deletion is well made. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firdaus Kharas[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and has few references. It is mainly a piece that provides a platform for the subject of the article to document his curriculum vitae and current projects. In my opinion, the Kharas article fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:PROF, and WP:NACADEMIC. Dr42 (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is written like a résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article, is very likely an WP:AUTOBIO given the creator's username, and is not referenced to the depth or volume of reliable source coverage about him that is required. Three of the six footnotes here are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage, and the three that are reliable sources are not about Firdaus Kharas, but just briefly mention his name in the process of being primarily about other people. As always, he's not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there may be some marginal notability here, the article as it stands is unacceptable per Bearcat. Looking at the history of the article, it has been repeatedly been cut down into something encyclopedic by experienced editors, then expanded back to puffery by SPAs. Arguments from WP:BOGOF are pretty relevant. Comment that history suggests SPAs may immediately recreate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11 (but not speedy so we can more easily apply G4 if/when necessary). Normally I would consider two honorary doctorates clear evidence of notability but given the ongoing puffery being added even during this AfD I have no faith that the article can be maintained in a promotion-free state, and I don't think it does too much harm to the encyclopedia to just delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow discussion of recent additions to the article by an editor who did not participate in the AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the discussion as Delete, but based on comments by User:Vinlev on my user talk page, I have reverted and relisted for additional discussion. Pinging User:Dr42, User:Bearcat, User:Russ Woodroofe, and User:David Eppstein to ensure they are aware. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Vinlev's claims that the AfD should consider newly-added sources in the article: The sourcing is not the biggest problem with the article — it is the apparent promotionalism and COI editing. So even more editing by the same editor is unlikely to be an improvement. Nevertheless the Tim Review source is just a talk announcement, the Thiel College source is not in-depth, the Animated Activist source is just a YouTube link and does not appear reliable, the NPSIA source is a duplicate of one of the others, the animation magazine source does not mention the subject, and the New Yorker source mentions him only briefly, as the business partner of the subject of the article. So although some sources look reliable and in-depth there do still remain sourcing issues as well as the bigger promotionalism issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may be completely wrong, but I think there's a good chance that User:Vinlev (also see Special:Contributions/Vinlev) is the subject of the article. Regardless my own research shows that this individual lacks significant, sustained coverage. It does not appear from the perspective of WP:GNG that this man in the Steve Jobs-esque photograph with a poorly-constructed WP article and very few sources verifying any of this information has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [sufficient enough to warrant the presumption that this man is] suitable for a stand-alone article". The article is just a curriculum vitae space for a man who, while he may do some good things and have an academic appointment, is not notable and does not meet WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. The remedies that Vinlev made to the complete absence of secondary sources and references do not help him in his quest for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is a clear COI because I have a hunch (and I may be wrong) that Vinlev is Kharas. Perhaps an expert like User:ST47 or User:Bbb23 can be of assistance at this point in the conversation since User:Vinlev (also see Special:Contributions/Vinlev) is an SPA and most likely Kharas himself. I was about to Speedy this, but I will await the expertise from the aforementioned admins. Dr42 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, let's follow this direction.

First thing is that it is obvious I'm not sure exactly how to follow all the discussions about what editors feel about the entry. Therefore any direction about where to look and contribute my comments would be greatly appreciated.

I do understand your points about "puffery" and believe that the entry could easily be pared way down to make a few specific points, and to use those citations that you consider valid. I also have many other possible citations that talk more in depth about Kharas.

Another point I'd like to make is that as a long-retired journalist I did Kharas's Wikipedia entry completely on a volunteer basis. I have also done dozens of other communications and stories for other small, often one-person, humanitarians on a volunteer basis. This is the way of many do-gooders today. Also I believe Kharas is a huge benefit in this space. He has helped save thousands of lives with his (self-funded) animation campaigns, especially The Three Amigos (HIV/AIDS) and the three Ebola videos. In fact I have a letter (somewhere) from Population Services International stating that after the release of the Three Amigos during the height of the South African AIDS epidemic, their distribution demand for condoms increased about 40% in that country. That alone may have saved many lives.

OK, enough puffery.

I appreciate the chance to work this through and create an entry for Kharas that meets Wikipedia's criteria. vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, Vinlev, are you Firdaus Kharas? Dr42 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


correction: PSI's condom distribution increased 29%, not 40% as stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for getting a Wikipedia article is not the things a person does — it's the amount of media coverage he does or doesn't get for doing the things he does. Until you understand that, there's nothing else to discuss. Everybody and their dog can claim to "deserve" a Wikipedia article because they're such awesome people who do amazing things: which is precisely why getting into Wikipedia is not a matter of saying the person does amazing things, it's a matter of showing that media have independently deemed them amazing enough to cover their amazingness as news. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat: does that also include academic institutions and highly respected individuals deeming that someone's work is amazing, or just media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vinlev, if you need more information about notability guidelines, please see WP:GNG. Also see WP:BLP. Just because there is a claim by an academic institution and a very ambiguous group of "highly respected individuals" that Firdaus Kharas or his work is "amazing", it doesn't require that this individual is worthy of an article in Wikipedia if there is a lack of substantial, significant, or sustained coverage. This is not meant to discount or condone one's work, it's simply a matter of conforming and adherence to policy and regulation pertaining to WP:N. With that in mind, it doesn't seem that this individual is notable based on the clear lack of coverage. I don't intend to come across as uncaring about the work you put into the article, I'm just giving my opinion that the article clearly does not meet the standards that are set for BLP and notability. Even with the newest edits, it's just a CV, and that's not what wikipedia is for. Also see WP:NOTPROMO and WP:SOAPBOX. Dr42 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia is highly prone to being misused by people as a publicity platform — so the notability test for getting an article on here is not what the person says about themselves, it is what other published third party sources have said about them in the third person. We have to be able to verify that the claims are accurate, because self-promoting wannabes often make false claims about themselves so that they sound more notable than they really are, and we have to be able to verify that media outlets have considered the person's accomplishments to be of enough public interest to write and produce their own content about them. For example, a person is not automatically notable just because he's won just any award that exists on earth — a person is notable only if he's won a certain specific tier of important awards, determined by whether the media devote attention to the award presentation or not. A filmmaker is notable for winning an Academy Award and a writer is notable for winning a Pulitzer Prize, because those are major awards that get a broad range media coverage — but a person is not necessarily notable for winning an award at a minor film festival, or in a local poetry contest, that can be "referenced" only to the awarding organization's own self-published website because media coverage about the award is lacking.
      The notability test is the existence of substantive coverage about the person, in published sources (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers) that are independent of the claims being made. Not his own website, not press releases from the involved organizations, not his staff or alumni profiles on the websites of companies or universities he's been directly associated with: evidence that somebody independent of the claim made an editorial decision that the claim was interesting enough to create and publish third party content about in some form of media. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr42: No I am not Firdaus Kharas. My name is Mike Levin. I am a retired journalist in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • commentKeep - okay, having gone through this, I lean towards the idea are enough sources here. The Atlantic interview is an interview, but it's an independent publisher and about him [1]. The Ottawa Citizen profile is kinda short, but independent (it's profiling him for his honourary doctorate - but looking at who else is there, seems an indicator of notability). The Globe and Mail profile is also shorter, but certainly about him, not a passing mention [2] - the Methodist News is an interview [3] because he was apparently some kind of keynote speaker at a Methodist summit, but is about him, has a clear author, etc This Global Calcuttan thing might be good, but I'm not totally clear on how reliable it should be considered. Most of the awards I couldn't confirm and should probably be nix'd, but AfD isn't cleanup. In the event this AfD would be closed as "delete", redirecting to The Three Amigos Campaign would obviously be preferable. WilyD 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dr42, Bearcat, WilyD plus others: I truly understand you editors do this on a volunteer basis and that I have been inundating you with questions you feel contributors should know the answers to. Therefore the only path to follow is for me to completely redo the Kharas entry, pared down to a few paragraphs (similar to other Wiki entries for humanitarians) and to use only the citations that you have indicated are valid for wiki criteria. I will do this today and tomorrow and replace the existing entry with it. Please don't delete the existing entry until I can use it to reproduce the coding. Thanks. vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors: Thanks for your comments. I have redone the entire entry with citations that fulfill Wikipedia criteria. Look it over please. Vinlev
  • Comment I am still convinced that this is a WP:BLP1E at best and does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Even with the reformatted and newly edited article, I doubt this passes muster. Where do we go from here? Revote? Relist? Dr42 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft pending improvements to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft per User:BD2412, with the very strong suggestion that the article be sent through the Articles for Creation process after additional work. (Struck my delete vote above.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify. My WP:BEFORE search yielded more RS. He was the main subject of "Kharas strikes it 'Rich' with English-lingo soap. (UTV International's managing director Firdaus Kharas; 'City of the Rich,' soap opera)(Focus: Malaysia)"; Latif, Baharudin ; Groves, Don, Variety, August 25, 1997, Vol.368(3), p.64(1). Here are other good sources:
  1. Strauss, Maris (June 6, 2005). Panels point to TV's future. p. 6. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  2. Stewart, Lianne (January 1, 2004). India and Canada renew co-production treaty talks. p. 13. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  3. De Jager, Christelle (December 12, 2003). Strikas tooning up.(South Africa)(Brief Article). Vol. 281(49). p. 42. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient evidence of `nh, and prolonging this through draft space is likel to bring us right back here again. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First I sensed a Conflict of interest as per WP:COI - The creator's name is the same (refer history), later "he" change to "User:Vinlev" - refer to WikiCommons, you will see Vinlev is Firdaus Kharas (the author and the source of all the photos uploaded). Secondly, the article has been rewritten and revised again and again; and the final outcome is like what it is now (a "stub" resume). If this person is really notable, it should have been easy to write about him but from how I see it, he is not. Moving to draft may or may not help unless if there is someone who are committed to rewrite it again - this article was created 13 years ago but yet no one was willing to improve it (except User:Vinlev). For now, I would say "Delete" is the best vote - Jay (talk) 18:28, 20 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) 04:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wurm Online[edit]

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

Major tone, advertising problems. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wurm is a pretty notable MMO. How about instead of nominating it for deletion you spend that time fixing some of its supposed advertising issues? Bluedude588 (talk) 07:16, 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) 23:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AuronPlay[edit]

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

insufficeint reliable information to show notability of this youtuber DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountasser Hachem[edit]

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

ceo of small business, with a good press agent who can get him interviews where he says whatever he pleases. They don't count for references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman. We have way too many articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep after extended time for discussion. This certainly appears to be a topic that is likely to be notable, and there is virtually no express support for deletion. BD2412 T 05:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Baitul Mukarram Masjid (Karachi)[edit]

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

Unrelated coverage/references. Nothing notable in reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. [was "Keep"] Assertion, not challenged, is that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, the biggest city in Pakistan, which is a major assertion of importance. The deletion nomination is incoherent, as far as I can tell, and has no complete sentences. I interpret its sentence fragments to mean that the nominator views some or all sources in the article as including unimportant/unrelated information, which is not a reason for deletion. I interpret it to mean the nominator sees none of the sources as being reliable, also not a reason for deletion. I take it that the deletion did not perform wp:BEFORE and has no idea whatsover about the actual availabiltiy of reliable sources available in English and Urdu and other languages. Please speak up further, nominator, but otherwise this is frankly suitable for a "Speedy Keep" due to an invalid nomination. If the nominator won't express themselves in sentences, I highly doubt they did adequate other work (and do they speak Urdu by the way?) I will refrain from asking if they speak English. :) (Hey, please take that last sentence lightly, as intended.) --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rather assume this is a notable topic comparable to Baitul Mukarram National Mosque, in Bangladesh. It would be like deleting St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) and literally hundreds of other New York City church articles in Wikipedia, because they are all smaller than the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Actually there are articles on more than 100 Catholic churches covered in Manhattan alone (see Category:Roman Catholic churches in Manhattan), much less all the other Christian denominations and times 5 boroughs. Here's a non-sentence for y'all: So literally thousands. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try also searching on "Jamia Masjid Bait-ul-Mukaram", which is how it is labelled in Google maps. And there are no doubt other spelling variations and complete name variations, also. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And pics at Beautifulmosque.com webpage about the mosque, which is a reference already in the article but ignored, establish notability 1,000 times better than words, too. Really, User:Störm could you please just withdraw this nomination? --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i was too strong/harsh about that. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you @User:Doncram you're right as i am also from Karachi and bait ul mukarram masjid is not far from my house it is second largest mosque in karachi after New Memon Masjid (i have also created an article on new memon masjid). Bait ul mukarram is also mentioned in many news website and if you search Mufti taqi usmani you will get to know he is Ameer of that mosque. i don't understand why you are nominating my pages for deletion continuously sorry to say instead of deleting the page you could have improve it just the way you have created few pages recently. i will also add User:Ngrewal1.
And sorry to say i have seen you're nominating AFD mainly from pakistan and daily you nominating 5 pages on average please don't do it wikipedia is a encyclopedia if pages have no or few reference it will get better in future or pakistani editors will do it.i am dissapointed unfortunately and i was planning to create few wikipedia this week but after i see you're deleting everything than i decided not to create any more article. anyways i am creating and adding more reference also will add reference in urdu language because bait ul mukarram has been mentioned in almost every newspapers of Pakistan.
here is latest reference i added "Daniel pearl kidnapping and foreign policy" US Magazine (slate) ( Todd, Asra Q. Nomani, Kira Zalan and Barbara Feinman. "Snoopy Ice Cream Parlour and the real story of Daniel Pearl's kidnapping". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2019-12-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ) has mentioned Bait ul mukarram masjid karachi.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, User:Memon KutianaWala, that reference provides only a passing mention and does not provide any description or history or any other substantial content actually about the masjid itself. The only information it might provide is negative actually: it is named as a place where a terrorist said they have met another terrorist, but that information is not exactly helpful and you didn't put an assertion about terrorism association into the article. Attaching the reference in the front of the lede after the first two words "Baitul Mukarram", along with 5 other references attached there, doesn't help. I guess we can all say we believe that the masjid exists. What is needed to establish the topic's notability for Wikipedia is a few reliable sources actually providing substantial content about the masjid. It is nice but not necessary for a source to be _primarily_ about this place (which this new source is not); it must however provide substantial information about it (which this source does not). This source could possibly be used in the article to support a new assertion about the mosque having association with terrorism, but actually I don't think it even does a good job of that. To make a negative assertion like that would require more substantial development and sourcing; from that one source alone I frankly do not believe, myself, that the mosque is substantial in terrorism. It would be like saying, just because two muslim persons happened to say hello to each other in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan), that St. Patrick's is important in Islam.
Also, I mean this as helpful feedback to you, the placement of all references in the current article does seem to suggest that none of them support any substantial information about the mosque. The first seven references follow the second word in the article, as if to suggest they just support the existence of the mosque. Then it looks like four references look like they support the idea that a Mufti (whose association with the mosque is not explained) was with an administrator of the mosque at some other place, when the administrator was killed by terrorists somewhere else, while the Mufti was not killed. And the placement of the last reference suggests it supports the fact that some police and a driver were killed by the terrorists at the other location. I am not sure whether the killing of the administrator would go towards establishing terrorism association of the mosque; is that what you mean to suggest?
So, while offhand I tend to believe you that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, that appears not to be directly supported by any source, so far. Nor does anything else about the mosque itself, besides its existence, appear to be supported, given how the article is currently written. I do still tend to believe that there must exist some sources out there, somewhere, actually describing the mosque (its architecture, its layout, its size) and its history (when was it built, was it the first mosque of the muslim group which built it or not, etc.). It is fair of the deletion nominator, or any other Wikipedia editor, to request that you develop the article better, if it is not to be deleted. Could you possibly please do that? And/or, relating to the question of notability of the mosque, could you here point to any sources which you know of which do seem to actually support notability? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i could to it better if its not deleted i will add 5 references but they are in urdu language. BBC urdu ( سہیل, ریاض (2019-03-22). "مفتی تقی عثمانی قاتلانہ حملے میں بال بال بچ گئے". Retrieved 2019-12-04. ) has also passing mention of bait ul mukarram masjid but in urdu. i have also mentioned in article that mufti taqi usmani is amir of mosque also mufti shahab.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed statements about the mufti to the Talk page. Though perhaps it may be something valid to say, that a given person is or was a mufti of this mosque, if given with supporting reference. However that is still not really saying anything much about the topic of the article, which is the mosque. Is this person more important for something else, i wonder. Note it is not encyclopedic to list the names of staff of a school, say, at an article about the school, it doesn't really help readers know anything. We already could assume that staff exist, and they have names, we don't need to be told what the names are, usually. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After bbc urdu i have added two more references one is from urdu magazine talking about bait ul mukarram masjid and surrounding and one from urdu news website. any urdu editors are welcome to check :)Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously this article is about a place of worship. I personally am satisfied with the existing large number (15 references) of reliable newspapers plus Pakistani TV channel news website references already there. In my view, it meets Wikipedia notability requirements.Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Ngrewal1, but note that Wikipedia does not accept articles about any and every place of worship. Just like we do not want articles about every restaurant, say every McDonald's location which can be found on a map. Is there anything significant about this mosque. It was previously asserted in the article that the mosque is the second biggest in Karachi, which impressed me, but someone else removed that, so now there is no assertion of it having any importance at all. Could you help identify any factual statement about the mosque, at all, which is supported by any of those sources, and could be included in the article? Besides that it is a place of worship and it has a location. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the way, I have tried to improve the existing references and also have added a related template about 'Mosques in Pakistan'. Hope this helps. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the coverage is only helpful to verify the mosque, but still no sources verify the claim of 'second-largest mosque'. Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Störm, that claim can easily be taken out which I did just now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just removed the majority of the article and its sources to its Talk page for discussion. Besides some interpretation by a Wikipedia editor about some photos, which is not valid to be included in an article, the content removed said nothing about the mosque. User:Störm is correct to be concerned about this article. Even without any sources supporting anything, I still tend to think it is a valid topic. But Storm is right that the content, before and after my last change, actually provides no supported information about the mosque, besides the fact of its existence and location (which anyone can know from looking at a map). The contributing editors here need to learn/understand that substantial information, supported by specific sources, needs to be provided. There has been mention of sources in Urdu, which could be acceptable. Sources do not have to be in English, and they do not have to be available online. But they do have to say something substantial about the mosque, they cannot be merely passing mentions having no actual information about the mosque.
By the way, is there a more substantial article in Urdu language Wikipedia or any other version of Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi This is the offical website of Darul uloom karachi and they have mentioned about "bait ul mukarram masjid" they are explaining when the mosque was built and on how many acres and students get islamic education and many other details: "جامع مسجد دارالعلوم کراچی | جامعہ دارالعلوم کراچی" (in Urdu). Retrieved 2019-12-06.. --Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Google translation of that webpage, it appears to me that the following passage is about this masjid. The webpage covers 4 mosques managed by a university of Karachi, and the passage is: "This mosque has a special status in the mosques of Karachi because of its breadth and style. The mosque and its associated area covers about five acres. There are several sanctuaries in the compound of the mosque Baitul Mukarram. There are five teachers and about two students are studying. There is also a seminar for academic talks; some teaching classes have also been started (up to Rabiya), as well as the Darfalafa and the center of Al-Aqsa al-Islami. Two sectors also serve their own useful service."
I am not sure that is all about the mosque from that webpage, because transitions between covering one vs. another are not clear to me. However, yes, that is some detail. It would be nice to know what about its "breadth and style" give it "special status", and more about what that means. Also there is no mention of this being the 2nd biggest mosque in Karachi (an assertion already dropped from Wikipedia article); one of the others covered at the webpage seems to be more important and/or bigger, and perhaps there are other mosques not associated with the university which are bigger. Anyhow, this webpage's assertion of some importance for this mosque perhaps suggests that more information about this mosque might be available somewhere else. --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its 9th day completed and 10th day is started so can someone delete this tag ? as it has all the information updated and i will occasionally update more.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are several "keep" arguments and none aside from the nominator's to "delete", it is not been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed the second-largest mosque in Karachi, nor that in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources exist. It seems likely that this could be clarified, and then I think consensus could be readily reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: To User:78.26, thanks, that is a fair summary. I am guessing that no participant here is going to provide substantial more information though.
As an alternative to deletion (wp:ATD), which we are supposed to look for, perhaps the mosque is or could be covered in List of mosques in Pakistan, and the article could be redirected to that row (using an "id=" anchor for the row). There is a mosque there already named Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi, which is supposed to become the world's 3rd biggest mosque. That is not this one, is it? It covers a mountain top, while I think this one is on the flat between flat boulevards. Merging this article to a row there, and redirecting to it, would be a lesser alternative to deletion of the article. If/when substantial sources and content do eventually emerged, then the redirect could be converted back to being a separate article, with its edit history properly showing early contributions. But maybe this mosque is not substantial enough to be included in that list of very substantial mosques. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In absence of substantial sources being produced, I change my !vote to "Merge", leaving a redirect behind: it seems to be verified as a mosque and a row for it can be created in List of mosques in Pakistan. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, there is nothing to merge. I also think this should be redirected. Störm (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few references and will add more in urdu too , the article is ok and have enough references now.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, but it still seems there is nothing factual to say about this place at all, much less enough to write an encyclopedic article. The English language sources are not about the mosque at all. For example the one sourced to dawn.com is all about some book's price, and towards the end there is passing mention " I had often seen the community police helping the elderly, women and children cross roads near the Baitul Mukarram Mosque in Gulshan-i-Iqbal and the Civic Centre." That is NOT ABOUT THE PLACE AT ALL. I assume all the Urdu language ones are useless also. No facts have been put forward. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nearest analogy is that we keep cathedrals, but not parish churches, unless they are historic in some way. It's hard for me to be sure of the equivalence, but it seems the importance of this is enough that it should go in the keep direction. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why do you think this is important, please? The English language sources do not establish importance. Given that the Urdu language sources are provided by the same editor, I think it is fair to dismiss them all as irrelevant. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Doncram please update your google translator or please let other editor understand the urdu language article is clearly passing everything and notable even bbc urdu has also passing nomination not only this foreign policy has also mentioned this mosque. i repeat again if you don't understand urdu and your translator is not good please leave it and let other editor understand as i have added enough references and urdu language references are of newspaper and blog and they are clearly telling about mosque and other detail there are more than 10000 wikipedia pages who have only one reference or two but they are active no one has put deletion tag to them because that kinds of article is created by "wikipedia admins or editors". this discussion is of pakistan and no one has said about 'deleting' as this mosque has been mentioned in newspaper and other blog and its notable.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is government of karachi website and its in english passing mosque[1] also i am adding few more references.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:25, 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. czar 01:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAVPower[edit]

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

May not pass WP:NCORP. There's no coverage of the company itself. Also, the references are a bit scant, unless we want to write articles purely about the product.

In addition, there's a serious conflict of interest since the primary editor of the article is User:Rangga.Rav. This user may be an employee of Ravpower. User only made minor edits. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication of notability. I've reviewed the edit history and it was created by a single purpose account; and I also see an edit by a user name containing "Rav" and based on my experience, this was likely created for WP:PROMO purpose. `Graywalls (talk) 20:24, 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) 22:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of starships in Babylon 5[edit]

List of starships in Babylon 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly-detailed list of minor fictional elements. While these types of starships may have notability in the show, Wikipedia is not designed to provide details about fictional programs, rather to provide details about the real-world impact of those fictional concepts. Has very little reliable secondary sourcing, and there's not much out there to prove an impact for these spacecraft. The article doesn't prove a real-world impact of this concept, and frankly, I don't think the concept has that sort of impact. Hog Farm (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non notable collection of fancruft that already has its own offsite Wikia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOST and fancruftchery as mentioned. 20:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Graywalls (talk • contribs) 20:29, 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) 22:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subcontrabassoon[edit]

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

Non-notable musical instrument. This appears to be the pet project of a single contrabassoon player, who has worked with some (two) composers to create scores for his as-yet-to-be-realized instrument. Recordings presented appear to be synthesized and not played on actual instruments. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON given that the instrument doesn't even appear to exist yet. Even the theoretical concept of this instrument fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the instrument doesn't exist. In addition, there are plenty of more notable bassoon variants that still might fail the notability test, including Giles Brindley's "logical bassoon" that do not have WP pages. Millstream3 (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources given appear to help this pass the GNG, nor does anything I can find on a GSearch. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Jet[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: Of the current sources, #1 is an interview, #5 and #7 are short, promotional profiles in industry award listings, and the remainder are namedrops in award rosters. Porn industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only passing mentions in someone else's memoir/personal essay[15] and a work of fiction[16]. Cheers, gnu57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu57 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreed not notable. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pronographic performer and director. If it was deleted in 2006 it is almost certain it is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame#Members. Redirects are cheap. ミラP 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. If a redirect is made, nuke the content as poorly sourced first. Half of the article's prose is based on a puff piece interview, the rest isn't sourced at all. An independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee[edit]

List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. This is an indiscriminate listing of broadcasters that serves little encyclopedia value. It fails the general notability guideline, as the list itself is not discussed by significant independent coverage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being so specific that nobody has listified them before, i.e. WP:SALAT. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IAR because deleting this article will make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. – PeeJay 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability standard for lists. No significant coverage in independent sources dealing with this group. Cbl62 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Oh really, Milwaukee County Stadium History, 2019 marks the 25th anniversary of the Packers leaving Milwaukee County Stadium, County Stadium - History, Photos & More of the former NFL ..., Green Bay Packers Milwaukee BornonJune8 (talk) 4:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
We know that the Packers played a few times a year at Milwaukee County Stadium from 1952-1994, but unless you look one-by-one in the individual Packers seasonal articles, there isn't exactly a linear documentation of the exact dates of which they played in Milwaukee. BornonJune8 (talk) 4:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Coverage of Packers games in Milwaukee is discussed at reasonably great lengths here. BornonJune8 (talk) 4:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There is literally not a single mention of the TV coverage of the games in Milwaukee in that section..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BornonJune8 is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Even if there isn't currently any significant TV coverage of Packers games in Milwaukee, why should we hold ourselves back from trying to add any in the first place? Somebody had to broadcast the games in Milwaukee afterall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is not a place to originate information or aggregations of information. If no other source talks about the broadcasters of the Packers’ games in Milwaukee in such general terms, we absolutely shouldn’t take it upon ourselves to do so. – PeeJay 09:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The irony here is that I think there could be a decent article written about the history of the Packers' time in Milwaukee, but by narrowly tailoring it to include just a list of the television broadcasters whoever created this article has probably missed the notability mark here. (For a similar example, Bills Toronto Series remains an article, while List of Bills Toronto Series broadcasters was properly deleted and redirected to the main Bills Toronto Series article.) Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat agree Ejgreen77. I think List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, History of the Green Bay Packers, Green Bay Packers seasons, and Milwaukee County Stadium are more appropriate for discussing the Packers' time in Milwaukee. I don't want to pre-judge, but an article like Green Bay Packers in Milwaukee or Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee would seem like a stretch. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: How exactly would an individual article about the Green Bay Packers' time in Milwaukee "be a stretch" (that's purely subjective)!? Milwaukee County Stadium for instance, while it hosted their Milwaukee based games there, was only representative of a small portion of its history. It's primarily known and remembered for being the home of the Milwaukee Braves and later Brewers. And simply pointing to the History of the Packers and Green Bay Packers seasons articles respectively, is too broad if we're going to talk about their years in Milwaukee, which is about 41 out of their 101 year history as a franchise. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just off the cuff, I'd say an article about the Green Bay Packers time in Milwaukee would be of interest and notable. Also kind of outside the scope of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Paulmcdonald noted, that's not really what is being discussed right now. That said, I clearly stated "I don't want to pre-judge", meaning that I would have to see the article after it is written and its relevant sources to have a clear opinion. Personally, I don't know how much there is to actually talk about, other than "The Packers played some home games in Milwaukee for a number of years to make more money". But who knows? I would be happy to be proven wrong. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Television contracts have been stable since the 70s, so it's either been WITI/CBS-Fox for an NFC opponent (and once WCGV-TV during the Fox transition), or WTMJ-TV/NBC for an AFC opponent before '98. Just not really needed here. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: We may know the networks for sure, but not exactly the announcers who called said games. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: Even if TV contracts for the NFL have been stable since the 1970s, that doesn't take away the fact that the Packers also played games in Milwaukee two decades prior to that. To put things into perspective, what about prior to 1956, which was CBS' first year at covering the NFL? And it wasn't until about the mid-1960s that NFL teams could have their own individual TV contract. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BornonJune8, if you could keep your comments in "threads" (see WP:THREAD) it makes it much easier to have a discussion and reply to specific comments. I moved your comments to the proper threads so that each reply matches the original posting. Also, as the page creator, please feel free to formally make your reasoning on why the article should not be deleted. This is commonly done by starting a new thread with *'''Oppose''' .... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with those who have suggested that we might construct a notable article about the Packers' history in Milwaukee. But the article that has been nominated for deletion is far too narrow in scope for our encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of it being too inclusive. We should have more lists with this list's items split among right-handed & left-handed broadcasters, bald & non-bald, above & below 50 years of age, sunny and non-sunny disposition, etc. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. However, if restoration is requested, it should be limited to only the most recent version as the earlier ones were deleted due to copyright violations. RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferney House[edit]

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

Non-notable house. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. The sources that are offered in the article (which, I might note, represent significant WP:REFBOMBING) are all street directory style listings, "mentions in passing" (where the house is not the primary subject, but is mentioned in a discussion about another subject), or otherwise not reliable sources (dead links, blogs, a Google search of all things, and sites like geoview.info). What limited content that was here (deleted as copyvio since) was lifted verbatim from this website. Which deals primarily with the "landed" family who once owned the house. And in which the house gets a passing mention. Along with their other multiple properties. But not enough to establish notability. (Certainly no more than the several thousands other homes mentioned on that website.) When removing the PROD tag (now also obfuscated because of the, entirely correct, deletion of the copyvio'ed revisions), the author claimed that this webpage established notability. But that webpage barely covers the house in passing. And, as with the other refs, confirms that it once existed. But doesn't discuss the house, its architecture, construction, history, use, or anything else that might establish notability. As far as I can tell (from a search for ACTUAL references), the house was not a listed building, was not especially architecturally relevant, and of no material historic importance. That attempts have been made to establish "notability through association" (of the people who may have lived there) is inconsequential. As notability is not inherited. And is certainly not inherited by the "things people once owned". Guliolopez (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 20:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harling Mural Art[edit]

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

Apparently an autobiography. User already blocked on three other projects for self-promotion. All the sources are basically crap, social media and the like. I don't see basically anything in English. Possible there are non-English sources, but given that they have been blocked on id.wiki as a sock of an account blocked for promotion (see [17]) it doesn't inspire confidence. GMGtalk 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Autobiographical article (as per page history) is promotional, lacking in reliable sources and fails notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed wordpress, instagram, wikiquote... the whole Smorgasbord of unreliable sources. The earlier version could be an example page for what is not a WP:RS. Promotional, GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possible speedy A7): A WP:SPA autobiography which is not making credible claim to notability, supported by poor references. (There is also a Draft:Harling Bassukarno - more detailed biographically but still lacking credible referenced notability.) AllyD (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of drafts, a copy of the article is here on a user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They keep doing it, they seem to really want to see their sig in the article, or they do not understand signatures. It is promotional editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian:I think it's a language issue leading to CIR, in terms of the creator's edits. The top of their talk page has a nice note in Indonesian about the tea room invite. Well-intentioned, but autobiographical, not notable and lacking editing competence.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James "Tootie" Hogan[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. All I could find is an article in Gaston Alive magazine.[18] Working with famous people doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I found one other source/link from an old version of the page, now archived here. However, it's a passing mention of a performance, plus a passage of text that 1) feels like a press release and 2) mirrors pretty closely text that's in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Based on the allegations, if true, that he has toured extensively, he could pass WP:CREATIVE. I;d need to research this case more. Give me a few days. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is in WP:MUSICBIO, which is part of NMUSIC: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." That criterion has been disputed, though. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the "non-trivial coverage" though? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 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. czar 21:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Precepts[edit]

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

The article cites a term "The Four Precepts", and related definition, that are specific to the author, Wayne Ferguson. While I can see links to his own blogs/books on his term, they appear almost nowhere else and thus fail GNG. There are web links to an Islamic-concept of "The Four Precepts" (although, not in any material way, so the term would not attain GNG in this guise either), but that it is a very different definition (e.g. nothing to do with Ferguson/Nietzche etc.). I tried to "draftify" this but the creator moved it straight back to mainspace (i.e. so a PROD is not going to work). I, therefore, offer it to the community to decide at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I tried to clean up the lead sentence, the only search results I found were those to the author's website. Doesn't seem to be a notable concept, no significant independent coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author of this article, Hazratio, has made a helpful statement on the Talk Page of this AfD: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Four Precepts, about their motivations for creating (and re-creating) the article. This also shows a WP:COI regarding this editor and this article which I have notified them on. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:SOAPBOX. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable, and a WP:SOAPBOX to boot. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, SOAP, nom. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and according to the creator's statements on the talk page. The subject does not become notable because a blog post about it has an "uptick in traffic." RoxAsb (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pile on delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 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. Sourcing overall here seems a bit weak, but the Juno win seems to be properly supported, so going with a keep based on WP:MUSICBIO #8. RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Élage Diouf[edit]

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

I'm unclear whether this musician is notable, and I'm also unconvinced about the reliability of the sources cited. —S Marshall T/C 19:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 19:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 19:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment winning a Juno award would pass criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC where it is specifically mentioned (only one criteria needed) but the citation for it is an unrecoverable dead link so proof is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO#8 (thanks,Atlantic306, for pointing out that the Juno is specifically named there!) The Juno award can be sourced from the Ottawa Citizen from 2011 [19]. There are also sources which verify the brothers' work with Cirque du Soleil (eg [20], [21], at least in the US and Canada); and a review of their performance at the CKCU Ottawa Folk Festival in 2004 [22]. A bio in a Great Lakes Folk Festival feature [23] has more info, including a previous name of their group, which could be searched for. This [24] mentions a Rising Stars award from CBC radio. I will try to add all these to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Juno award winner probably would pass criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO#8.-Nahal(T) 22:48, 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 List of reptile genera. czar 21:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of snake genera[edit]

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

A paraphyletic group whose content is more completely covered in List of reptile genera Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. The only thing this list adds to List of reptile genera is common names for families, which can easily be amended if desired. Otherwise, partial duplicate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of reptile genera. The content at the snake article is superfluous, but the title is a logical search term. Hog Farm (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above a logical search term. Some redundancy is OK but complete redundancy is to be avoided. The real question is whether and how List of reptile genera should be split into sub-lists if at all. With ≈ 60K current size there's no pressing need to do so and significant advantage to keeping the information in one article. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nominator here, supporting redirect as the resolution.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:58, 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 redirect to American College of Greece. (non-admin closure) -Nahal(T) 22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALBA Graduate Business School[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article on a Greek business school. I found one good source in Google books, but not much else. NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American College of Greece. Nothing to salvage in this promotional piece. According to a 2011 article in The Financial Times, ALBA has partnered with American College of Greece, where there is currently a single (unsourced) sentence referring to the "alliance" with ALBA. My preference would be summarizing/paraphrasing from the Google books source and the Financial Times piece to improve the appropriate section of the American College of Greece article. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything in this pathetic brochure and place in its stead a simple Redirect towards the article on the American College of Greece. And that's the merciful choice. -The Gnome (talk) 10:55, 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. Sandstein 17:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance demon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's all WP:PLOT, so no information should be retained. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a great article, but Buffy is well-studied, and this is no exception. Some nice analysis in this peer-reviewed article and Sex and the Slayer, for example. There's plenty more out there, especially relating to Anya. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if this is in-depth about the demons, or just uses them in passing to discuss something else (i.e. an aspect of justice system in Buffyverse). Slayage ([25]) is peer reviewed but I doubt it is taken very seriously in the field (the about page doesn't suggest it is indexed anywhere, I'll ping User:Randykitty on his take on this, it would make for a fun DYK but GNG is an issue). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, just a response to the ping by Piotrus: The journal appears to be serious: the editors and board are all legit academics and the journal is indexed in the Modern Language Association Databaseand DOAJ, which confirms that this is not a predatory journal. So while it doesn't appear to meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, it does seem like a reliable source to me (unless somebody digs up evidence to the contrary and note that this field of study is not directly my specialty). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor plot-cruft that fails GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I removed the prod because shortly after it was placed, a merge discussion was started and I added to the merge discussion. The nominator should have joined the merge discussion instead of starting this one. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated the merge target as well, as I feel neither needs to be retained on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article found by JM is a good start, but it is overall a low quality resource (at best, the very minimum when it comes to academic sources), and also a single source (GNG requires multiple) and finally, I am not convinced it is in-depth coverage of this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 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. Commentary since the DRV is strongly for keeping and is supported with solid sources. RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi Pad[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a hosting service. This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit. Wikipedia isn't a product catalog. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC) - just commenting to affirm I'm maintaining my position. A lot of added sources are things that are typical of review oriented websites that writes reviews on just about every consumer electronics out there and I still don't feel that this product is particularly notable. Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  1. The tablet is actually one of the first 2 tablets that use Nvidia Tegra K1 Processor (besides the tablet from nVidia).
  2. It is also the first tablet from Xiaomi.
  3. Due to its good price-performance ratio, it has a large userbase (hint from xda device website views)
  4. Also it seems to be important part of Company History (now being "purged" from Official Sources)
Above keep by 0xSkyy (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have also updated the article with more relevant information. To find more information about the device, it is advisable to limit (google) search to January 2013 to January 2015 range.
Also, whereas MiPad 2,3,4 ... should (probably) not have separate Wikipedia pages, MiPad (original) should, as it is part of company history.
Andy Dingley, actually, now it may seem indistinguishable, but at the time of its release, it was quite the Apple 2, it had Hardware Spec comparable to gaming console, with super low price. Care to comment.
Also pinging CentreLeftRight and Fifthavenuebrands
0xSkyy (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:PRODUCTREV says, "other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel.". Practically every phone gets reviewed, so if product pages are written entirely on reviews, that means just about every cell phone would be on here and the problem I am seeing is Wikipedia acting practically as a mirror of phonearena. And eurogamers.net has a disclaimer on the bottom "Sometimes we include links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.", so it could be seen that it's in their advantage to review favorably when possible. Could we consider it truly independent? Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete, but 0xSkyy has added some references to the article, and more input would beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because in terms of notability, this MiPad

  1. Was the FIRST tablet to use Nvidia Tegra K1 processor,
  2. Was the FIRST tablet from Xiaomi in a line of tablets.
  3. Had highly competitive pricing (240USD)(read: extremely low price) for the hardware it used. Nexus 9 ($399) & Nvidia Shield Tablet($399) (both Tegra K1 devices) (both around 8 inch tablet)

comment by 0xSkyy (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment
That's not how notability is defined here. See WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG guidelines.
1 and 2) ok? For example, suppose a product was the first of the kind to have some arbitrary attribute. For example, offering tomato flavored ice cream. This simple fact wouldn't make it notable unless there's a lot of press coverage about it.
3 companies and businesses do loss leaders and door busters all the time in order to get the branding out there for promotional, marketing and public relations purposes and it don't mean a thing. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually performance is a significant attribute for any computing device, for which this device DID get coverage in the "press". (Article updated with references)
3.) By your logic Graywalls So you want to delete Apple 2, ipad, nexus 7, nexus 7 (2012), nexus 7 (2013) ...?
comment by 0xSkyy (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:ST47, Kindly remove the delete notice from the main article, as (hopefully) the original reason (lack of sources) is no longer valid. Thanks. (As several 3rd party (&) news sources have been added) 0xSkyy (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @0xSkyy: No, the notice will remain until this discussion is concluded. And I am leaning towards deletion at this time, I would have deleted the article yesterday but wanted to give other users the opportunity to respond to the references which you have added. ST47 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion,

Original Reason for deletion 

Find sources: "Xiaomi Mi Pad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

does not seem valid any longer, external sources are now cited which cover the topic, with sources including:

  1. The Verge
  2. Reuters
  3. Ars Technica
  4. PC Magazine
  5. Washington Post
  6. Mashable
  7. Cnet
  8. Eurogamer
  9. Digit_(magazine)
  10. AnandTech
  11. Time (magazine)

and others... have been added, please check the article again. 0xSkyy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: I don't understand what you think you have proven. Your work to improve the article is absolutely appreciated. This debate will remain open for another 7 days from when I relisted it, at which point the consensus will be re-evaluated either by me or by another admin. ST47 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – (from DRV) The product meets WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT by virtue of these WP:THREE: PCMag, Time, and CNET, and there are others like Verge and Engadget. (The reviews appear to meet WP:PRODUCTREV.) Additionally, per NPRODUCT and WP:PAGEDECIDE, merging this product article with the article on the company would make the article on the company too large, and potentially create an WP:UNDUE problem. So, I think this product is best covered in a stand-alone article. Thanks to 0xSkyy for the WP:HEY. – Levivich 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Levivich just above. Pretty clearly meets the GNG, which I think should be sufficient. Much improved since AfD nomination, added sources look good. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please DO NOT !Vote more than once. You already casted "keep" once. Graywalls (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Andy Dingley, Fifthavenuebrands, CentreLeftRight, Enos733, Reyk, and Cryptic: notifying Deletion Review participants who have endorsed the deletion who have not participated after this was relisted; and users who have casted !vote = delete just in case they want to make comments. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete Why are we being asked to !vote a third time, with this nonsense of "discard the old !votes we didn't like last time". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a major product. We wouldn't keeep all variations, but this sseeems to be a suitable base article for them. DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improvements in sourcing and content since the start of the AfD show this product to be covered in multiple RS and thus to be notable per WP:GNG. The article isn't perfect, but has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be fixed with editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:02, 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. czar 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erkenbrand[edit]

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

Non-notable LOTR figure. Only scholarly coverage is brief mentions and plot summaries. Will get some Google results, but more for a political group in The Netherlands than for the character. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment I don't why the link to the AfD daily log is redlinked (I used Twinkle) but clicking on the redlink did work. Could an expert in this area please look into what's going on so this can get properly transcluded? Hog Farm (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC) fixed Hog Farm (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a new List of The Lord of the Rings characters. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. The reason such a list does not exist already is that all these were created as separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The List of Middle-earth characters has been revamped to include a short description for each figure. I don't know if there's enough about Silmarillion figures to warrant separate lists of Middle-earth in general and LOTR. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tolkiencruft. Piotrus-lol. Minor character not notable. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 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) 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer family (Guiding Light)[edit]

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:24, 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 merge to Harley Quinn. This AfD could also be closed in other ways, but the point is that there is already a large overlap with Harley Quinn, and the consensus leaned towards that HQ's appearances don't necessitate a separate article. I'll leave it to editorial decisions what to merge and how it should be presented in the parent article. – sgeureka t•c 12:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn in other media[edit]

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

Appearances of a comic book character in film, etc. This fancruft fails WP:LISTN. I get that this is a spin-off article of Harley Quinn#In other media, but it is not a worthwhile one, and would be removed as excessive detail if it were still in the source article. For very popular comics characters with dozens or hundreds of appearances, Wikipedia should not attempt to list all appearances. Doing so verges on WP:IINFO and is of no interest to any but the most devoted of fans. Fan wikis are better suited for such purposes. Our article about the character should instead provide a broad overview of appearances and highlight the most important appearances. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harley Quinn. Instead of deleting this content, consider condensing it into a table that simply lists works (or groups of works) by publisher and medium. It's not necessary to list detailed plot and character information from each of Quinn's appearances in video games, movies, etc. (that information, if it differs from her general bio from Batman: The Animated Series, should be captured in the articles for those separate games, movies, etc. and can be just briefly referenced here). I appreciate what the author was trying to do here but I don't think that it is necessary to maintain this level of wp:fancruft. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just pure fancruft and the amount of detail in this article is extremely trivial in nature, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of these cameo appearances are not necessary to mention anywhere besides her Wikia page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obstensive Keep Merge per Masem - When characters are adapted into other media, they are usually reinterpreted, adapted, and portrayed by multiple different actors. And Sandstein, we do list every appearance except for irrelevant minor appearances (such as a cameo) and trivial non-appearances (such as a mentioning). If you can fit all of the character's relevant appearances into the main article at a reasonable length, I will change my vote to delete. If not, there is no basis for a deletion. "In other media" sections get spun off into separate articles when they reach a certain length.
What I will say is that (in general) these deletion spammings (especially those of TTN) are getting out of hand, and are beginning to border on disruption. If certain users have an issue with how the WikiProject operates, they need to open a larger discussion instead of making an excessive amount of WP:POINTy deletion nominations. In fact, there actually have been such discussions where users have claimed that there is some secret ownership cabal at WP:COMICS, so the deletion spammings are really just a way to bypass the discussion without having to worry about changing consensus. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you keep claiming people must go discuss on a project page doesn't really help against claims of ownership. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic talk between Darkknight2149 and TTN about how Wikipedia works. – sgeureka t•c 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You seem to have a strong misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is a community-based encyclopedia rooted in discussion and consensus. Trying to bypass discussions and assert your point of view by haphazardly spamming deletion nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) being a great example) is disruptive. You also have zero grasp of what ownership of content means, apparently. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, I would expect you to know better. DarkKnight2149 01:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You act as if project permission is needed to nominate vast swathes of articles that fail multiple policies and guidelines. You act as if there is some affront to not dealing with a project directly over the articles related to the project. That is a claim of ownership. I have absolutely zero faith such a project can do anything when many of these articles have been sitting for literally 14 years at this point. Any attempt at self-cleanup seems to have died right out of the gate. Look at the Marvel and DC character lists and their complete lack of any organization. Look at all the various merged characters brought back by people like Rtkat3 out of complete ignorance of how WP:N and WP:WAF work. Look at the several people who seem angry at the mere fact that I'd nominate some of these articles even before there is any discussion on Wikipedia-defined Notability. There is no working with such a mishmash of cloistered people. It's not like there aren't some reasonable voices, but they're definitely drowned out. TTN (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at WP:COMICS has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "I don't like that!". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to dance around it instead of admitting your mistake. It was also you who tried to push the onus onto me to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous WP:GAMEing of WP:OWN is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. DarkKnight2149 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, you just aren't going to drop that you lost that argument, are you? You keep mentioning changes or gaining consensus. What exactly am I doing that differs from consensus? Is there a consensus that non-notable articles should exist? That's not a consensus a project can make. Projects can decide how to best organize content and act as a place of easy communal discussion. They don't get to override site-wide consensus on Notability. You are clearly trying to assert project dominance in a space where it doesn't exist. Thus you are claiming ownership. I in no way believe my pace is anywhere near a level of disruption, especially where these articles clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's that exact same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you displayed earlier. I'm about to drop a message on your most recent deletion nomination informing everyone of the situation. So far, you have displayed tendencies of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:POINT, WP:GAMEing, WP:ASPERSION, WP:INCIVILITY, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. What you are doing is trying to circumvent discussion by finding as many WP:COMICS articles as you can, scrolling down to the references section, and then automatically tagging them for deletion without doing any research into topic, or looking into whether or not sources exist, all to push your point of view and protest the project in a disruptive manner. Already at the Goblin nomination, two separate editors have supported a deletion on the basis of the erroneous deletion rationale that you made. And when confronted about making a false claim or a mistake, you either try to dance around it or double-down on it. When someone presents third party sources or cites a specific guideline to you (such as WP:LISTN or WP:NCOMIC), you ignore it on the basis of "I don't like it". The subject of change and potential ownership at WP:COMICS already has been discussed multiple times community-wide in the past, discussions that you are choosing to circumvent because you are afraid of opposition (as you yourself admitted). You were bold enough to spam deletion nominations. Now your behaviour has been contested by more than one editor. You need to either open a discussion at dispute resolution, WT:COMICS, or another appropriate venue. Telling you this isn't WP:OWN, it's WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue this disruption, you will be reported. DarkKnight2149 00:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More ownership nonsense. Just make your pointless report because I have no intention on catering to your nonsense. I am one of several editors in several spaces nominating things for deletion. You so far are the only person to try to turn this into a battleground by claiming that any change has to go through the great project cabal. This is OWN to a tee. Both PROD and AfD are community tools using outside consensus to determine lack of notability on a per article basis, and you have yet to explain what consensus I'm apparently trying to change. Again, I ask is there a local consensus keeping non-notable articles or something? I am not unilaterally mass redirecting. I am not going through changing established MoS items. This has nothing to do with your project or any internal consensus. TTN (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you have previously been told, it doesn't necessarily have to be at WT:COMICS. WP:DRN is a perfectly fine place to take it. You obviously have no idea what WP:OWN is, nor do you know what WP:CONSENSUS is. You do not get to circumvent discussion just because you are afraid that the community won't rule in your favour. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you also may want to take a good hard look at Wikipedia:There is no cabal and WP:STEWARDSHIP. If you think your mentality is remotely acceptable, I would suggest you ask around. Any administrator will tell you the exact same thing I am. DarkKnight2149 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can shout that to the high heavens, but you're still demanding the involvement of the project in something irrelevant to the project. If you want to have an internal discussion on how to deal with your low quality, non-notable articles, feel free. I don't need to be involved. You still have yet to point out what apparent consensus I'm even breaking. AfDing non-notable articles is pretty standard. You have an extreme bias issue in this discussion, especially claiming that I'm somehow making people !vote a certain way when they can use their own eyes to judge the content. You are not going to change my mind, so you can either make your RFC/ANI/discussion with an admin or just go about your business. TTN (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I expressed bias in this discussion. Without reaching, I dare you to substantiate this bias in a way that doesn't boil down to "He asked me to stop blindly and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, and engage in dispute resolution! The BRD/consensus process is content ownership, because if I try to change how the topic of comics is handled on Wikipedia through discussion, a cabal of editors will DISAGREE with me!!" Something that actually has been discussed community-wide multiple times and that you are deliberately choosing to ignore, I might add. When you continue on, don't be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point. DarkKnight2149 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, word it in a way that completely ignores the repeated, explicit demands of project involvement. You take the time to slap me with two generic warnings like I'm a toddler, but you're not going to go through with it? You have been deeply biased in both discussions we've had, going for a fight right out of the gate and vaguely hand-waving at some supposed consensus I've breached but refuse to disclose. You purposefully pinged me to this unrelated discussion just to continue a prior argument. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure my started AfDs since I've returned this year are likely at 90%+ in favor of my position, so I'm quite confident that nothing I'm doing can be considered disruptive outside of my supposed invasion of "your" article space. TTN (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a battleground to host arguments. I initially informed you of an objectively false claim that you used as a basis for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) and expressed my concern after looking through the vast number of articles you were nominating. You repeatedly doubled down on it and downplayed it instead of admitting your mistake. It's the way that you have behaved and justified yourself since then that has led to this moment. You have selectively ignored what I have been telling you to try and "win" some imaginary argument. You need to listen to other editors. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, it amazes me that you don't see any problems with what you are saying, or the way you are acting. You have also haven't provided any evidence of "bias" on my part, and it seems as though you desperately need to read through WP:TINC, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Dispute Resolution, WP:OWN, WP:GAME, WP:LAWYER, WP:WIN, and WP:BRD. You seem completely unable to accept when you are wrong, or that Wikipedia isn't your way or the highway. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says the person who pinged me in a completely unrelated AfD by another user for the purpose of continuing an argument. You're the only one preaching, so it's not "listen to other editors." It's "listen to you." This is your particular biased point of view because you're upset that I'm doing something of which you disapprove in "your" space. That you keep bringing up my "mistake" (which again, you're the only one parroting it) like it's the biggest golden gun in the world is quite telling. TTN (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact juvenile WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I was referring to. And still, you provide zero evidence of bias. I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else. There is no "argument" to "win". The sooner you figure this out, the better.
"You're the only one preaching, so it's not 'listen to other editors.' It's 'listen to you.'" And this would fall under "selectively ignoring what I have been telling you", not to mention WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then file it. Stop acting like you have me over a pit and just do it if you really believe your position is so strong. It's going to be a whole lot of nothing. TTN (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More comic book fancruft. Cjhard (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - After Gonnym's vote below and doing some major clean up of the article, I'm still a little in two minds about the article. I don't think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters applies as strongly as Gonnym does, as the guideline is about alternate versions of a character, whereas this refers to every appearance of the character in non-comic book media. However, I think the article types are similar enough that the guideline is helpful in this case. I think there's a likelihood that cleanup to the point required could lead to it needing to be merged into the main article, but that remains to be seen. Cjhard (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid list that has a set criteria for inclusion and has enough sources for a start level list article. This list could be merged to the parent article, but it would just pointlessly make that article larger and put undue weight to this section, over the general article. Also, to all the deletionists here, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters which is a guideline which this list follows. Seems like what we got here is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS posse going for the backdoor way, instead of trying to get the larger community consensus to actually change the guideline. Just a note to any admin closing this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's clearly in reference to a full character offshoot that meets the proper standards of a Wikipedia article, not an unending list of plot summaries. There's even a sentence that seems against this kind of thing: "Such appearance lists or indexes fall under Wikipedia's concept of a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information." While that is directly talking about an extensive comic publication history, these other media appearances are no different. TTN (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Harley Quinn is notable, there's no need to list every time she appeared somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Harley Quinn. I feel 50% of this list is already documented in that article, and it is a matter of just organizing the rest for more minor/one-off appearances (which must be sourced for this types of appearances, where it is not obvious to a regular viewer/reader/player). --Masem (t) 02:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid spin off article for valid content that wouldn't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Main Harley Quinn page is 33k of readable prose. At best, this list is 30k - but as I pointed out, about 50% of it duplicates what's in Appearances already. Combined is well under the SIZE issue. --Masem (t) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If all of the relevant appearances (excluding trivial non-appearances and non-notable cameos) can be fit into the main article, I don't see any issue with a merge. DarkKnight2149 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a rough start, it looks like there might be a path forward... I propose keeping with a Merge tag for now while someone Sandboxes the merge for discussion without forcing the merge to be carried out if said sandbox doesn't truly seem like it fits. Not sure what to put in bold there as my !vote, but I'm not sure who will actually do it, either. -2pou (talk) 09:25, 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. czar 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Shabaz (Musician)[edit]

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

The notability of this person is dubious at best. As per the original prod, the sources are crufty and unreliable and for someone who has such a high claim as the "Voice of the UAE" I would expect actual meaningful independent coverage of bother Shabaz and the award, which is also not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything here that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Sources given are dubious (i.e. identical text with different bylines) or otherwise basically a couple of paragraphs of anonymous promotional copy. ... discospinster talk 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi You guys have put tag twice and adminstrator has removed it and said it that its not promotional kindly references are not promotional please check twice.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They declined a speedy, you can't decline an AFD. It's still all PR nonsense. None of the sources are independent, reliable coverage. They are from dubious publishers. Winning an award isn't notable. Winning a notable award would help establish that. Voice of UAE is not notable, nor is the other award. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the same that article is based on promotional and i'm asking why ? i am getting references from Google and the artist is notable as i have seen him in newspaper too , few indians notable newspaper has mentioned him. i will add and also note i don't know the artist neither i am taking money from anyone. i am occasionally write on Pakistani celebrities as well as indian.

ThanksMemon KutianaWala (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally explained why above. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the existing sources are a couple of different press releases, each of which is reprinted two or three times (sometimes minimally rewritten but unmistakably PRs) and some sources that don't even mention Shabaz. I can't find any reliable independent sources anywyere. Appears to be WP:UPANDCOMING but there is no sign of him meeting any applicable notability criteria yet. --bonadea contributions talk 19:14, 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. All arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSUSEFUL. – sgeureka t•c 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of henchmen of James Bond villains[edit]

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

List of mostly extremely trivial characters, including the famous "Warehouse Guard" and "Thug with Yo Yo." Any important characters actually worth covering would be in the movie cast lists and novel plot summaries already. There is no justification that this is needed for general encyclopedia benefit, so it's not a proper fork. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is a collection of minor plot details. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Unsourced listcruft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is a list which is useful to our readers. We keep such lists. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What possible role does this fulfill? It's not a standard character list, and there is no editorial need for an expanded character list for such trivial characters. Even if you reduced it to actual characters, the film/book articles handle all character plot summary. Nobody is going to end up here outside of links from some redirected articles that should either be retargeted to their film/book of origin or outright deleted. Wikipedia has no need to list literally every character in literally every series. This is definitely a cutoff point. TTN (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
informational, navigation, or development purposes Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need a justification to back up that reasoning. Without an actual reason, that can be used for literally anything. Its current incarnation fails all three of those points. TTN (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion. My opinion is that the list serves an informational and navigation purpose. We keep these lists. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<crazed laughter> Hahahaha! <crazed laughter/> I've been expecting you, Mr Burst! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I'm having is "List of shoes by color worn by James Bond characters" could be a valid list if we're using such basic reasoning. There needs to be some kind of reasoned out threshold of information we list, even should I ultimately disagree with you on that cutoff point. TTN (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many people need to know about "Thug with Yo Yo?" Any actual core character is covered on the films' cast lists, so it'd be best to let people interested go to a fan wiki where they can see detailed information about these characters. Though I'm sure even the Fandom threshold of inclusion would discount half this list. Even if revamped into a more formal character list, we'd need to thoroughly gut half the entire list and duplicate information present in each film, which would fail WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there's really no non-idiotic reason not to. The list has a clear focus, concerns characters in a long-running book, film, and video game franchise, and its contents are easily verifiable in published sources. Surely what is worthy of published print encyclopedias is worthy of inclusion on the ultimate online encyclopedia by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Seriously, what is the pressing need to remove this content that has been worked on since 2006 and to instead keep viewable for public consumption this discussion? Yeah, I know someone will link to "it's useful" or "its harmless" or whatever, but those are actually valid arguments in this case, because what we have here is something that a handful of accounts don't like and so would rather we have a discussion about the article for anyone to read than an actual article that a half dozen odd people think is not interesting for whatever anti-logical "reason." --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
  • Delete: an unsourced list of fancruft which largely duplicates material from articles about the movies.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this was just a list of the film henchman then it duplicates material and wouldn't be needed but it also includes characters from the books including by other Bond authors such as Amiss and Gardener and Bond videogames so I do believe it is useful to have this information in one place and considering there are 10,000 views a month the reason for deleting is not strong enough. This is essentially a split from The James Bond franchise article (or however its titled) so it does not have to be independently notable as the parent topic is very notable, and all the info is easily checked from the primary sources, so keeping the characters descriptions short also helps verifiability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above and Atlantic306 on if this being just a list of minor characters, it's not needed. Per Atlantic306, though, if this list has useful information, one alternative might be to Draftify this list to excerpt and selectively merge out the useful information into related articles. Friendly pinging MJL here, who is known for his or her creative solutions and alternatives to break a logjam of a fairly even split. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: Now you're giving me a reputation to uphold!
    If you ask me, the delete side is right to point out that a lot of the list is trivial ("Thug with Yo-Yo" now personally being my favorite Bond villain- 100% deserves a backstory lol). However, Draftify does sound particularly useful in this situation. My suggestion would be to cut the list down to only henchmen played by notable actors or which have a stand-alone article (like Vesper Lynd).
    I'd offer to help clean it up, but I currently seem to have my hands full with Lists of Xeon microprocessors. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Lugnuts - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per reasons of those who want to keep this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:48, 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 delete. czar 21:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neweurasia[edit]

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

Defunct website without working references. Worthy, but not very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject does not show and has not shown signs of life. This is a website that's at best defunct, having raised not a ripple online. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 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. Sandstein 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oromo migrations[edit]

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

It is a preach that depends directly or indirectly on Bahrey's book "The history of Galla (Oromo" as the article itself claim. Though several authorities, Abyssinians and Oromo oral history indicated that the Oromo were in fact in the North-eastern part of the continent even before the arrival of the Habasha, the book continued to be used to lay claim Oromo migrated to Abyssinia(Ethiopia).Read the story by non oromo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 14:02, November 7, 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion: The article is not just based on Bahrey, but on at least four reputable secondary sources mentioned in the article. They make use of Bahrey's book, being the only contemporary source of the subject matter, but they treat it in an indisputably scholarly way. Therefore the article is not propagating a hoax, but a subject matter that is seriously discussed in the literature on Ethiopian history. By all means the article can use improvement, but a deletion is not justified. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Landroving Linguist: Word by word what article say is "a 16th-century an ethnic Gamo monk named Bahrey is the foremost source on the migrations". Glad you mentioned the other sources also use his book. The book which starts by saying "I have begun to write the history of the Oromo in order to make known the number of their tribes, their readiness to kill people, and the brutality of their manners.", questioning his point of view. Unlike you said it cannot be improved for several reasons.
  • There are no many source especially which did not depend on the book.
  • Oromia Culture and Tourism Bureau published the "Oromo history before 16th century" book to stop the "hoax".
  • No one believe this due to its contradictory to the oral history.
  • It was mentioned in Oromo people. So it did not need to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 07:32, November 8, 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Dotohelp: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 15:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable. There are many citations to be found online via Google and JSTOR. It seems the OP did not do a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Using Bahrey as a source, Many citations were created. There is no more book written at the time or no evidence in oral tradition. User:dotohelp (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not convinced yet about the notability of this article. If this migration was notable enough like the Bantu expansion, I would have expected several sources disccussing it. Why are there only 3 sources one of which questionable? Most of the content in this article relies on Pankhurst, and as we all know, a single source does not help with notability. I will vote keep if there are more RS especially for the size of this article. Senegambianamestudy (talk)
  • Keep. The original homeland of the Oromo is a matter of dispute, but the migrations of the 16th century are not. See Mohammed Hassen The Oromo and the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia: 1300–1700. He avoids the word "migration", preferring "movement". Same thing. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Oromo movement is not the dispute as Adal Sultanate and Christian Kingdom fight but the migration is. According to Mohammed Hassen, Oromo moved to south(Hadiya, dawaro ... are south relative to mada walabu) not from south. The migration we are talking is the claim Oromo migrated from southern Ethiopia Borana and Guji zones into more northerly regions of Ethiopia, which is with less and conflicting evidence. As Somali account show, Oromo moved to somalia from the northern areas of Hargeisa to its southern portions such as Lower Juba in 16th century.The proceedings of the First International Congress of Somali Studies The Guji tradition also claims that the Guji were forced to move southward to the present day because of the attack by the Christian army. User:dotohelp (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mountain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:ENT: of the sources currently in the article, only #1 constitutes significant coverage. #2 is a database entry and #3, 4, and 5 are award rosters. (I recently removed an additional ref which did not mention Mr. Mountain at all). Mr. Mountain's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Under NFOOTY, youth footballers aren't automatically presumed notable. (Coincidentally, another non-notable youth footballer who played in 2018-2019 shares the same name.) I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage, PR/promo, interviews and passing mentions. Cheers, gnu57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ミラP 19:30, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amras[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Lacks real world notability and is not covered to a meaningful degree in reliable analysis. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 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) 18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High Guard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 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 redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. This goes mostly in line with the reasoning that the article is entirely plot summary. For a stand-alone article, more is needed. Tone 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ygritte[edit]

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

Another Game of Thrones article that fails GNG/NFICTION. Pure plot summary, not a shred of analysis. BEFORE doesn't find much, sure there is a lot of articles out there on GoT minute but they don't go beyond plot summaries like [26]: "this character died, which will of course affect some other characters". That's not an analysis, that's plot summary and nothing but. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "You know nothing..." Another nomination that fails WP:BEFORE and utterly ignores our policies including WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I greatly respect thee and thine quest to remove fan cruft. However, as Ygritte would say "You know nothing, Jon Snow....". Was no BEFORE done? There are many references available, for instance: [27], [28]. There is even a book on what Jon knows penned by "Ygritte" [29]. I am gravely disappointed, Piotrus. Kacper IV (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. PLOT-only articles do not make for a legitimate spinoff per WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Either add real-world material to the article (hasn't happened since it was notability-tagged 2.5 years ago), or get rid of the stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 16:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ygritte. IMHO, standalone articles for fictional characters should be limited to major characters with a lot of out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources (consider Darth Vader as a good example). Articles about fictional characters that are primarily plot summaries belong on Wikia, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character from one of the most notable series of the past eight years. We keep such articles. "You know nothing John Snow!" For reference see Night King AfD. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Currently fails WP:GNG. The above sourcing seems rather minor. TTN (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly notable character that received considerable commentary in the reviews of the show -- could be recovered, shouldn't be deleted wholesale, Sadads (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as what's good for print encyclopedias is good for Wikipedia. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)blocked sock[reply]
  • Redirect Minor character who appeared in several episodes of seasons 2 and 3, then kinda-sorta in season 4 before being killed by another minor character. I do think we need to address these articles in a more comprehensive manner, though; maybe auto-redirect all the articles that were created by the sockpuppeting troll AffeL? Anyway, User:IvanVector, would I be right in guessing that the block-evasion block you placed on the above IP was CU-related and so you can't disclose whose block was being evaded? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a minor character, but a major, top-billed character in one of the most successful TV series ever made and the source of what is probably its most notable quote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is she not a minor character? In the books she is not a viewpoint character, and in the TV show she (according to this) "appeared in" a total of 17 out of 73 episodes. "top-billed" seems like a dubious rationale for a standalone article on a character: Danai Gurira got top billing in Avengers: Endgame, but her character spoke, I believe, all of three lines throughout the film, and we already have an article of Rose Leslie. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor characters in GoT hardly include those who were billed during the opening credits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to concede that a character can be a major or mid-level character in several episodes of seasons 2 and 3 but a minor character in the show as a whole? The performer is also certainly better-known for her non-/pre-Thrones achievements than almost any of the others who appeared in the show. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not. Sorry. And I don't agree with your last point either. She's still far better known for GoT than for anything else. But we're not talking about Rose Leslie here in any case. If you're trying to suggest that she only got top billing because she was already well-known, I would point out that Max von Sydow, a big-name international film star, was in it and did not get top billing! As were other well-known actors like Donald Sumpter, Peter Vaughan and Julian Glover, all of whom had substantial roles. That doesn't wash at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't agree with your last point either. She's still far better known for GoT than for anything else. That's not what I said. I said she was better-known before getting on GoT than most of the other GoT actors were before getting on the show. She was on Downton Abbey a full year (or at least a TV season) before GoT started, and was not cast in GoT until a full year after that. I agree with you that she is now better known for GoT, but unlike, say, Kit Harrington, Emilia Clarke, and even Peter Dinklage (all of whom, I would argue, are still also best-known for GoT), she actually had well-known television roles before GoT. (And no, the existence of Sean Bean, Lena Headey and Charles Dance does not disprove my point, any more than Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing having been in Star Wars meant that film's cast wasn't filled primarily with unknowns.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I still disagree with you. Despite being a big fan of Downton, I don't remember her from that at all and didn't when she arrived in GoT. Peter Dinklage was also a very well-known actor before he was on GoT. I notice you don't address my other point that much bigger stars did not receive top billing. Even Charles Dance didn't until the second season he was in. Neither did Jerome Flynn, already exceptionally well-known in the UK for Soldier, Soldier and his musical career. Nor Jonathan Pryce, an internationally-known star of films and musicals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunter Kahn: Could you give some examples of at least the kind of content found in those sources that could be included in our article? The existence of a large number of reliable secondary sources have summarized the plot of each episode of this show and the roles of various characters therein is not in dispute. Moreover, any discussion of Leslie's performance of the character and the reception thereof more properly belongs in our article on her, per previous discussions with the article's creator here and here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, here are a couple examples of notable sources that discuss the character outside the context of simply plot summary: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. This is not based on an in-depth search for sources, incidentally, but rather a quick cursory glance at the top Google News search results; deeper dives in books and news articles, databases like NewsBank or Lexis Nexis, and material like GoT DVD commentary tracks would produce much more. That being said, the small sampling includes content that could be used for such sections as characterization, character conception/creation, portrayal, cultural impact, critical reception, etc. (Incidentally, it's not correct to say information about the actor's performance should be limited solely to that actor's page; it's very common practice for information about a character's portrayal to be included in an article about a fictional character, and indeed it would be a glaring omission if it were not included. Look at any number of quality content for articles in this area and you'll see it included.) — Hunter Kahn 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indisputably more about the actor than the character; what it says about the character can be summed up in a single sentence, hence not enough to hang a standalone article on.
  • This is an unreliable source. The paragraph beginning "thankfully" is filled with speculation based on the books (from which the show had already diverged significantly, and Stahler had no reason to believe this trend was going to be reversed), which all turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
  • This and this are again more about the actor (and to a lesser extent the episode The Watchers on the Wall) than the character, about whom they say almost nothing.
  • This I will admit is largely about the character, but it doesn't say much beyond WP:SPECULATION. The sentence Leslie said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that she thought that in the episode "Mhysa", Ygritte was not intent on killing Jon or stopping him, but rather "to hurt him". could easily be incorporated into List of Game of Thrones characters, but it certainly isn't enough to hang a standalone article on.
  • This is shameless clickbait based on a redditor's tinfoil fan theory. I can only assume you have not actually read it, because it literally makes no sense.
  • This ... have you even read it? It's clearly about the actor, not the character. The fact that reliable sources (?) are now verifying some dubious BLP content that this article's creator had previously edit-warred into a separate article does not make this topic notable, any more than it retroactively exonerates said creator's behaviour.
  • This is speculation on what a character who died in season 4 would think of a character who until the end of season 6 was on the other side of the world. It is essentially a stretching out to article length of this short paragraph; I can only guess MentalFloss was desperate for clicks in the leadup to the season 8 premier.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needless to say, I don't agree with all of your points above, and in some cases I think you are overemphasizing and magnifying perceived issues with the sources while ignoring other aspects of the articles that would be useful in expanding the page. (Your continued insistance that all aspects of the actor's performance of the character are only relevant to the article of the actor, and not the character, is particularly misguided.) By regardless, I have no interest in going through a point-by-point discussion with you about individual sources; that it not the purpose of an AFD discussion. My only point was that a very brief cursory search for sources turned up several, and that there are many others, all of which point to the notability of this subject. — Hunter Kahn 03:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued insistance that all aspects of the actor's performance of the character are only relevant to the article of the actor, and not the character, is particularly misguided. If you could either (a) point to where I "insisted continuously" on that or (b) retract your groundless allegation, that would be helpful. What I said was that such sources are not useful for demonstrating notability of the character. If Ygritte was like, say, Elsa (Frozen) and had been subject to a large volume of easily verifiable critical analysis, then we could also include Leslie's commentary on the character in the article on the character, as the Elsa article quotes Adele Dazeem, but lacking enough material to build a proper article on the character out of material that would be more fitting to such an article than any other one article, there's no reason that that content shouldn't be included in the article on Leslie.
And again, this article's existence has been the subject of controversy ever since AffeL violated existing consensus by un-redirecting it almost four years ago, and in that time no one has actually managed to introduce non-ALLPLOT to the article; I highly doubt that if this AFD is closed as either "keep" or "no consensus; default to keep" you or any of the other keep !voters will bother to put your money where your mouth is and ameliorate that situation. You are happy to say that you have sources that provide us with verifiable, encyclopedic information, but none of you are apparently willing to show that such an article can be built.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've reviewed the sources presented here and I stand by my rationale, concurring with H88's analysis that they are mostly PLOT summaries/in passing/unreliable/etc. Thee is nothing to be said about this character that's not plot-based speculation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 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 redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. This goes in line with the reasoning that, apart from one sentence at the end, the article is only a plot summary. For a stand-alone article, more is needed. Tone 10:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodor[edit]


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

I know Game of Thrones is all the rage nowadays, but what makes this minor character notable (WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION, etc.)? The real world analysis of this character is limited to the fact that the actor playing it has "developed 70 ways of saying his name". Which is amusing but really, this one sentence of analysis is hardly sufficient to warrant a stand alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT: To List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor since the article isn't substantial enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. PLOT-only articles do not make for a legitimate spinoff per WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Either add real-world material to the article (best at its point of creation), or get rid of the stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 16:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. IMHO, standalone articles for fictional characters should be limited to major characters with a lot of out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources (consider Darth Vader as a good example). Articles about fictional characters that are primarily plot summaries belong on Wikia, not Wikipedia. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that disruptive deletionism is all the rage but what makes this article justify yet another nomination when the topic so clearly passes WP:GNG. It takes all of 10 seconds to find a substantial source which is specifically about the topic – The Ethics of Hodor: Disability in Game of Thrones – and there seem to be plenty more which explore this aspect – Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Game of Thrones; Fantastic Medievalistic Bodies:(Re) presenting Disability in Game of Thrones. So, WP:BEFORE clearly has not been followed nor are our policies addressed: WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. On a personal note, I was recently tempted to buy a door wedge labelled "Hodor" so next time, I'm definitely going for it. And now let's leave you with an amusing parody of our bureaucratic discussions here: A Novel Approach.... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Would you mind explaining why you put the titles of the above-cited papers/chapters in italics? It looks very much like you either (a) did a Google Scholar search for "Hodor" "Game of Thrones" and copy-pasted the titles without confirming what type of sources they are (let alone reading them to determine whether they provide significant coverage) or (b) found the sources by whatever means and made the decision to bring them to this AFD and misrepresent them as book-length works discussing the character. "Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Game of Thrones" for example is a very short article that name-drops Hodor all of two times[38], a fact not disclosed by you either deliberately or through careless failure to actually read the sources you cite in AFDs; "The Ethics of Hodor: Disability in Game of Thrones" similarly has its name cited in italics as though to imply it is a full-length scholarly book about the character, but it is a short interview that uses the name "Hodor" in its title as a segway to discuss disability in the show (and in fantasy fiction) in general[39] (it also somewhat carelessly conflates book and show, but there's no reason to go into that). It does make the claim that in 2014 a "war" took place between medical bloggers regarding what kind of disability Hodor had, but the fact that some medical professionals with an online presence also watch and care about the show enough to blog about it really doesn't make this one fictional character worthy of an entry in our encyclopedia -- if it's the only piece of real-world information that can be said about him, then it merits a sentence or two in a list entry.
Additionally, WP:BITE is a complete non-sequitur (the present article's creator has been editing for three years and has made more than 32,000 edits) and citing WP:BEFORE as you do here is an off-topic personal attack against the nominator. I have had my own beef with Piotrus in the past, but in this case he would have been well within his rights (with both WP:ONUS -- a policy -- and WP:BRD -- a widely-observed practice with the effective power of a policy -- on his side) to simply redirect the page without discussion or any search for sources that might theoretically allow the building of an article; taking the page to AFD to get community input rather than acting unilaterally was a polite, cautious, and entirely appropriate move, and attempting to prevent editors from doing so and from engaging in good-faith, civil discussion is extremely disruptive to the project.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great thing about Hodor is that he doesn't make long speeches. Let's try to keep this brief.
  1. The use of Google for AfD is not just accepted; it is recommended. Each AfD discussion has Google search links in its header and we are expected to use them, starting with the nominator per WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search...". It doesn't appear that the nominator has done this.
  2. When I go back and make such a search again, the top of the list is The Ethics of Hodor. This appeared in The Atlantic, which is a respectable magazine. The topic is clearly about the subject because his name appears in the title and his picture leads the article. It reports a variety of facts about the character such as the name Wylis; the debate about whether his condition was aphasia or not; and more. There's an extensive discussion about this with a professor of English – a respectable scholar. So, it's abundantly clear that there are good, detailed sources about the character and so the subject is notable per WP:NEXIST.
  3. WP:BITE may be an issue here. Note that the creator of the article hasn't edited since notice of the nomination was posted on their talk page. Perhaps they are busy or perhaps they are shocked by the action? And what about the readers? This and many other similar pages get a substantial readership. It's not a good idea to have such deletion notices underneath the appeals for funding which appear at this time. WP:BITE says emphatically that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. ... Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder...".
In conclusion, the nomination has no merit, its claims are false, nobody is !voting delete and so we're in the speedy keep / snow zone. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. So, you're just going to ignore the substance of what I said and attack a strawman? That's not helpful.
  2. Again, please answer the question. You italicized the title of a magazine article (indeed you have now done it twice) in a manner that implied it was a book-length work with "Hodor" in the title.
  3. If they are shocked by the action, then they really have no place editing a collaborative encyclopedia. They went out of their way to violate a standing consensus that Hodor and other minor ASOIAF characters do not get standalone articles, and now they are "shocked" that a community discussion is being held to address how to deal with their violation of prior consensus? Again, apologies to TOO if this is not the case and thoughts/actions that are not their own are being applied to them by Andrew Davidson. (BTW, that Atlantic interview's thesis, in case you haven't read it, could be summed up in a paragraph, if not a single sentence, in List of Game of Thrones characters, because it is not actually about Hodor but about how the show handles characters with disabilities and the way they interact with each other. Hodor's name appears 36 times on the page, but 10 of them are contained in a single short paragraph of 121 words. It also probably would have had significantly less relative emphasis on this minor character if it weren't for the fact that the character had been killed off five days earlier. If you or any other editor wants to create a Themes of Game of Thrones or Disability in Game of Thrones article using these sources, fire ahead, but hanging an article on a loosely-related topic on such sources is not a good idea.)
In conclusion, you appear to be uninterested in engaging in civil discussion or in actually answering the questions that are posed to you, so I would ask the closer to dismiss your strawman ad-hominem arguments for what they are.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"If my answers frighten you Vincent then you should cease asking scary questions". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So ... you're just trolling and unwilling to answer legitimate questions about your honestly bizarre strawman !vote that argues against page deletion that no one actually suggested? Good -- I hope the closer takes this into account and dismisses your !vote, and any of the other "keep" !votes that are based on your "GNG" and "sources" argument, accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the trolling sarcasm in your opening sentence, which several users have called you out on the recent past, is very unhelpful. If you are not careful, you may wind up getting sanctioned for this clearly disruptive and inflammatory behaviour in the near future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character from a major series ...for which references WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hodor –Hodor ‐Hodor‐☖ 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I did find some articles on the character,[40][41][42] but I don't feel like putting in a formal vote/!vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak article, but, as above, this is a character who has received a fair amount of decent coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revising to neutral per Hijiri's comments. I'd be happy ignoring that local consensus if this was an article that did a good job of incorporating the various secondary sources identified in this AfD, but it isn't. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:ALLPLOT. To give a little background, there is a longstanding implied consensus among ASOIAF editors that these minor characters (and even most major ones) should not have their own articles, and the status quo was disrupted in 2017 by the sockpuppeteer AffeL (talk · contribs); the issue was not resolved appropriately (AffeL was blocked around the time season 7 ended, and little was done to follow up on undoing his disruption), and so now the redirects should probably all be restored and new articles should require consensus to be created. I note that a number of the keep !voters insist that the topic is "notable" as it has been mentioned in sources (I'm not sure I would call it "coverage" per my response to Andrew above). Game of Thrones is a popular show -- that's to be expected of even characters about whom nothing encyclopedic can be written. If secondary sources can't be used to create a decent article that isn't ALLPLOT, those secondary sources don't provide the kind of in-depth coverage needed to meet GNG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Current shown sources seem like rather trivial pop-culture pieces. It seems like it'd be easy enough to summarize the entire character and any minor pop culture impact within a paragraph. TTN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Hijiri and TTN. Notable enough to be mentioned in a list, but not with their own article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- I think Hijiri's arguments are sound. A list, rather than a smattering of stand-alone plot summary articles, is the way to go here. Reyk YO! 08:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Generally I am not good enough to comment about fictional characters as I do not have technical sound knowledge about them. I do not have issues with the article but it seems to narrowly miss out on WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The sources found such as [43] show the general notability guidelines have clearly been met. Dream Focus 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. National Aphasia Association
  2. Mother Jones
  3. The Independent
  4. New York
  5. The Science of Game of Thrones
  6. Esquire
  7. NetDoctor
Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, this is now the third time that I've had to tell you that BEFORE doesn't apply here because Piotrus would have been well within his rights to redirect pending consensus to create an article, but choose to take it here for community discussion first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination proposes that we delete the article and doesn't say anything about redirection. WP:BEFORE states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:..." It then lists many actions but they don't seem to have been done. And because Twinkle is used to crank out numerous nominations, the process is being flooded. And deletion can certainly be the result as we see many other pages being deleted right now despite our clear policies of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. It's sad and silly to replace well-read pages like the one in question with pages like this discussion which will just stand as a monument to Wikipedia's waste of everyone's time. Game of Thrones frustrated and angered millions of people by leading them on and then cutting them off abruptly. WP:BEFORE is full of sensible advice to limit the damage this can do. If it is flouted then we all suffer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were in the very small minority of editors in this discussion who thought AFD was not for redirects. There was clear consensus that you are wrong on this point. Because you were unable to change the policy to reflect your personal opinion, you are now trying to force that opinion on individual AFDs, but it isn't going to work. The existence of dozens of possible redirect targets means it goes without saying that the nominator doesn't think the page needs to be deleted with no redirect left in its place; he would be effectively arguing for both [44] and the Hodor paragraph of [45] to be removed, so the fact that he didn't explicitly say "this nomination is intended to discuss redirecting the page, not deleting it" needs to be weighed against the fact that he also didn't say anything about removing the discussion of Hodor from those two lists, something you clearly didn't do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That source is "published" by a print-on-demand service apparently not dissimilar to Lulu.[46] What's more, 150 pages is pretty damn short for a "published encyclopedia" -- would it be safe to assume its article on Hodor is less than a page long and includes no real-world, non-plot information whatsoever? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunter Kahn: See my response to you here. The same basic points apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, here are a couple examples of notable sources that discuss the character outside the context of plot summary: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Again, this is not based on an in-depth search, but rather is a sample from a cursory search through Google News; there are other sources out there and a deeper search would turn up much more. (The other points I make at the other AFD you link to apply here as well.) — Hunter Kahn 15:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of garbage you forced me to wade through here, I see no reason why I should waste time going through all those links you just dropped. I find it unlikely you actually read all those sources and assessed their value for making the character (not the actor or this or that episode he appeared in) notable. I will just say that you seem to be awfully reliant on the websites of various British daily tabloids of dubious reliability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would respectfully suggest you read WP:CIVIL and attempt to take a more civil tone in your remarks in future discussions. — Hunter Kahn 03:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you. It is entirely uncivil to link-bomb an AFD with a bunch of GoogleNews hits that mention this article's title in their titles, without actually reading them, and insist that anyone who disagree with you waste the time that you weren't willing to put in and actually go through and read each one. You wasted a half-hour of my life on the Ygritte AFD, and now you are insisting that it is "uncivil" for me to tell you I don't appreciate your trying to do the same thing to me here?
Also, it seems pretty weird that you would bring up WP:CIVIL when you have an unstricken personal attack against me at that other AFD.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 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 redirect to Buffyverse#Magic. (can be changed to Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) if so desired). There was overwhelming consensus that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but there were also reasonable arguments that the topic itself does have room for encyclopedic growth. Redirection allows interested to editors to cull material from the page history, if useful. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Buffy-verse concept of witch is not notable in itself, all we can do is to list the few witches and write fancrufty OR analysis / in-universe bios, since no source I can find discusses their significance/etc. in real life (as far as I can tell scholarly analysis of Buffyverse witches is non-existent, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or redirect to Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). "A Witch in the Buffyverse was a person who was learned in witchcraft." [Snark alert] Wow! That's a novel definition that nobody else has ever thought of before. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of scholarly analysis available. Some examples:
    • From Slayage: "'I am the Law', 'I am the Magics': Speech, Power and the Split Identity of Willow in Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Teen Witches, Wiccans, and 'Wanna-Blessed-Be's': Pop-Culture Magic in Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
    • O'Reilly, Julie Dianne. (2013) Bewitched Again: Supernaturally Powerful Women on Television, 1996-2011. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
    • Richardson, J. Michael and J. Douglas Rabb. (2007) "Willow and Tara: Love, Witchcraft and Vengeance." In: The Existential Joss Whedon: Evil and Human Freedom in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and Serenity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. pp. 90-105.
    • Vetere, Lisa M. "The Rage of Willow: Malefic Witchcraft Fantasy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Buffy Conquers the Academy: Conference Papers from the 2009/2010 Popular Culture/American Culture Associations. Eds. U. Melissa Anyiwo and Karoline Szatek-Tudor. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. 76-88.
    • Wilson, Dominique Beth. "Willow and Which Craft?: The Portrayal of Witchcraft in Joss Whedon's Buffy: The Vampire Slayer." The Buddha of Suburbia: Proceedings of the Eighth Australian and International Religion, Literature and the Arts Conference 2004. Eds. Carole M. Cusack, Frances Di Lauro, and Christopher Hartney. Sydney: RLA Press, 2005. 146-158
    • Winslade, Jason Lawton. "'Oh...My...Goddess': Witchcraft, Magick, and Thealogy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Joss Whedon and Religion: Essays on an Angry Atheist's Explorations of the Sacred. Eds. Anthony R. Mills, John W. Morehead, and J. Ryan Parker. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. 51-66.
    • A whole chapter in this doctoral thesis.
And there's lots more. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor plot-cruft that fails GNG. A witch in the Buffy universe is hardly different than a witch in general. Do not oppose the creation of a new fully referenced article based on the aforementioned sources, perhaps Witchcraft in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but this article has clearly reached the TNT tipping point.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak (TNT) delete or redirect per J Milburn. Assuming good faith, I'm going to guess J Milburn has actually read at least one of the sources cited above and believes, in good faith, that the topic is notable enough that a proper encyclopedia article could be built around it. I respect his opinion and believe that if he thinks he or another good Wikipedian could build an article about it then he is probably right, but the present article is WP:INUNIVERSE WP:ALLPLOT. If Milburn or any other can improve it to the point of being a worthwhile encyclopedia article in the short-term, then I would support keeping it per WP:HEY. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also listed the article at ARS to see if any of the editors there would be willing to help improve it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think if the article is improved per the above a good start (or end) would be changing the title to Witchcraft in Buffy the Vampire Slayer per Zxcvbnm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that an article on witchcraft in Buffy would probably be better than this. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if there is merit in the above provided sourcing, the topic really should be explored in a parent article and then split out if there is too much weight. It seems like the best place for this kind of material is an article talking about the broad universe of the show from a real world perspective. TTN (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Seems pretty CRUFTy to me. If we're proposing to snow delete a list of Star Trek Starfleet starships and starship classes per WP:LISTCRUFT, this certainly is. Doug Mehus T·C 14:46, 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 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curufin[edit]

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

Yet another Tolkien's minor character with nothing but PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG. Kept 3 years ago b/c back then the argument that "It's Tolkien!" (so has GOOGLEHITS) was enough. Recent trend at AfD suggests that this won't be enough to day... PS. And yes, WP:BEFORE was followed, this character does not have an entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia nor any in-depth analysis, yadda yadda, seriously, it's as minor as it gets. And of course nothing is lost, Tolkien finds are cordially invited to contribute to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Curufin where such content belongs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks sources and real world analysis. TTN (talk) 17:42, 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 merge to Sled dog. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan husky[edit]

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

Sled dog already exists and has a sub section titled Alaskan husky. Perhaps some of the information can be merged if cited to RS but most of the information in this article is unsourced, or based on anecdotal information. Atsme Talk 📧 13:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 13:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All content is largely unsourced OR and is covered at sled dog and husky. Reywas92Talk 20:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge However, there are two studies included in this article referring to this "mix", but not developed well. Post-merge, I will develop them. William Harristalk 07:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up This clearly passes WP:GNG, because ""Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" 30 seconds on google books turns up [57] [58] [59] [60] [61], another 30 seconds on google news turns up significant coverage, "more than a trivial mention", in news sources large [62] [63] and small [64] [65]and 30 seconds on google scholar finds numerous scientific [66] [67] [68] [69] sources, not to mention the ridiculous numbers of popular mentions on just the first two pages of the main google search [70] [71][72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]. In total this took me all of about two minutes if someone had two hours and conducted searches of public library catalogues I'm sure this could be multiplied tenfold or more.
The article is poorly sourced, but WP:NEXIST applies here. The key thing is that information be Verifiable (emphasis mine). The available evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition, nor is this a mere short-term phenomena/promotion by a single breeding entity. There are recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, and reputable media sources that cover this as a separate variety of dog.
Yes I am aware that Brittanica chose to redirect/merge this content [82], but if we limited ourselves to only having articles if Brittanica does as well this would be a much smaller encyclopedia. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now so someone can rewrite with sources (NB not just slap some citations on the current article) and relaunch. Cavalryman (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to sled dog. Others have mentioned the article is mostly WP:OR, and if someone finds something worthwhile to add at the target, they'll either find sources to pull new info from, or find something in the redirect's history. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 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 10:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Döwletjan Ýagşymyradow[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in a tier one MMA promoter. Fight info are routine sort coverage which fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and thus fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He defended his title yesterday. The current champion. The ONLY MMA fighter from Turkmenistan in the world. He is a national hero in the country! --89.145.167.252 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The title from the promotion is not a tier one thus fails WP:MMABIO and could not find him in Sherdog or Tapology mma databases (I try a few different spellings) even the champion of ONE championship (the biggest Asia promotion) fails MMABIO. Many countries have fighters fight in lower level promotion and and some of them is the only fighter from their country and won lower level promotion titles and this is same for other sports as well for this is not the the criteria to be accepted in mainspace and the reports are routine sport reports than thus fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per nom.-Nahal(T) 22:37, 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.


Please restore the article. He took part in GRAN PRIX of Bellator 257

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sum[edit]

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

seems WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Idolmm (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSICBIO #9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.". 103.200.134.150 (talk) 02:22, 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 delete. Seems like the consensus is that WP:SIGCOV and other notability criteria are not satisfied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canam Consultants[edit]

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

Promotional company article. No significant in-depth coverage in independent sources. Speedy and PROD removed without significant improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,Stuartyeates, hope you are doing good. if you need any proof about the membership. Then i have photo or certificates i can share with you..

Hi please clear me about the links which is not good according to you ? I can remove my links if you suggest me which links is not as per your guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj Sandhu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:GNG, what is needed is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)\[reply]


I have updated some links about google books in references . And that search by your links., — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj Sandhu (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi , hope you are well,

I have added new links mentioning Canam. These links have the company's mention in Google books of verified authors, and verified journalists report links showing the media coverage of Canam. Please consider the changes for approving the Canam Consultants Wikipedia page. If you check the Wikipedia reference links of IDP and Edwise International, they are similar to the ones we have given. Therefore I request you to consider the changes that I have made by going through the links, and I hope they are good enough to make the Canam Consultants page live without any issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuraj_Sandhu (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 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 redirect to November 2016 Jakarta protests. Any content worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maida 51 case[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Al Maida 51 case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneutral POV by creator which is still original from him. Redundant since it is related to November 2016 Jakarta protests. Flix11 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not open minded for the second time since he using the same reason for AfD report as the previous one which rejected. Thus, should the report be proceeded with weak arguments of "dislike opinion of POV" that superseded by the limitation of official rules of Wikipedia concerning article deletion policy? Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:Flix11, Do not file an improper report here When you complained about NPOV of an article, Wikipedia has NPOV Noticeboard for appropriate place for NPOV discussion followed with adequate discourse on the article's talk page. So your report on Articles for deletion is not suitable here. The content of my edits rely on POV of properly reliable sources, not POV of mine:

WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Also read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete and This discussion carefully and rethinking your decision when complaining here. Qzxv5 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...which now extends to haranguing the Checkusers Bbb23, & ST47. Cabayi (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: unrelated, I did not even know if that light request is considered harassing. What you should know with cool head that this user is already made several completely bias pro-Muhammad Rizieq Shihab view such as in Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations (1, 2). Rizieq's foul-mouth might not known outside Indonesia but he is known here in Indonesia to have called for non-Muslim persecutions. Flix11 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think you should keep your words civil and do not attack other user personally by labeling or you must be banned from Wikipedia. Besides, I included the Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations because of my content edit depended by various Indonesian news portals and other reliable sources and not my personal bias, actually. Think objectively, not subjectively nor attacking personal. Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No merge nor redirect I don't think it is 'Extensive duplication of content' or redundancy because I also included various events or cases related to it, such as December_2016_Jakarta_protests, Ahmad Dhani case, response from Ma'ruf Amin and Interior Minister, result of court, etc. that are not covered in November 2016 Jakarta protests. Moreover, November 2016 Jakarta protests is only about one of several protests while Al-Maida 51 case is separate event focused on the long criminal case process with aftermath and the a lot of events surrounding it. Qzxv5 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to November 2016 Jakarta protests, per the above. If the proposed target article doesn't cover this content, it will after the merge. BD2412 T 04:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, if merged then a new title will be needed. November 2016 Jakarta protests does not adequately encompass all the events from the Sept 2016 speech through to the end of the trial in May 2017. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles on events can have content on their aftermath or extended effects without needing a title that specifies that. BD2412 T 04:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 07:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Focșa[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer that does not meet WP:FOOTY, WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have many references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - international player for Moldova per this, clearly notable. Did nominator follow WP:BEFORE? GiantSnowman 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am going with keep also, although only one game for Moldova, he has played European club football and if you go deep enough with the web searches there looks like sources out there that can help pass WP:GNG if ones bothers. Govvy (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs a lot of work but the guy is a current full international so the coverage must be out there for him to meet GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets both of the either/or criteria at WP:NFOOTY, in that (1) he has played in a senior international match: he started and played the whole of his country's most recent competitive fixture; and (2) he has played for multiple seasons in a league listed as fully professional, the Moldovan National Division, and was a regular starter for the runners-up in the recently completed league season. It seems improbable that insufficient sources exist to satisfy GNG for a player with such a career. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes both criteria of WP:NFOOTY as several others have pointed out. Completely ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 01:00, 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Johnson (publisher)[edit]

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

Publisher of a non-notable, out of print magazine that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have any references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note with the exception of an obituary. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:04, 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Tangents Interview[edit]

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

Sources found on web are only about Gospel Tangents Interview: Books and nothing more - Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no claim of significance. Mentions online appear to consist of self-published material and a couple of blogs. Skeletor3000 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Article currently has no references, and I'm not seeing anything independent and reliable. Ym2X (talk) 00:17, 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) 07:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Poet Society[edit]

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

No significant coverage. All sources relate to their music only, none of which have made a notable chart. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The final two comments in this debate have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle, Denver[edit]

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

This is an unofficial neighborhood of Denver. It even states in the article that it lines up with Civic Center, Denver. The map on the page even highlights Civic Center, not something called Golden Triangle. The page should be redirected to Civic Center instead, with perhaps some of its info offloaded onto that page. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I support this deletion proposal and never really thought this article was needed in the first place. I think the article may have been an effort on the part of the real estate community to re-brand the area and avoid the stigma of the 'Civic Center' name. Certainly any content worth retaining can be incorporated into the Civic Center article. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • I just copied over the only bit of info from Golden Triangle that I thought was worth it. The rest of it is already covered, unsourced, or irrelevant. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Colorado. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search shows that Golden Triangle and Civic Center are generally not the same but just have some overlap. I think both articles need to be corrected. This show that Civic Center is a basically rectangular shaped area containing government buildings and plazas. This shows that Golden Triangle is a much larger triangular shaped area with multiple uses and called " pretty much Denver's equivalent of New York City's Upper West Side." While there is some confusion because there are not formal boundaries for either, there are enough sources to support distinctive articles on both. MB 19:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry you are interpreting the sources you linked incorrectly. The thing that you linked for Civic Center is the Civic Center historic district, which is a completely separate thing. It corresponds roughly to the park that is there. If you think that there should be an article on the historic district, then that's fine, but that is not what the current Civic Center article is about. The article you linked about the Golden Triangle uses the exact same boundaries as what the city uses for the Civic Center neighborhood. When we are talking about neighborhoods, there is no difference between Civic Center and Golden Triangle. So do you wanna change your keep vote? Bluedude588 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not want to change my !vote. If you read the Civic Center, Denver article (at least before you started your merge ahead of the conclusion of this AFD) carefully, you will see it is written almost entirely about the "historic district", not the larger "neighborhood" that the city used the name on. The lead starts out with "the center of civic life" and the history section covers the development of the park and the civic buildings. The article is/was really about the core civic center area only. Perhaps the title should be changed, but I haven't determined the common name for the park and immediate area - it may be correct as is. This article, Golden Triangle, Denver, is about the greater neighborhood, which the city may call Civic Center (note that some sources say Golden Triangle excludes Civic Center Park). It talks about the architectural style of homes within the triangle shaped area, major streets, etc. It has almost no overlap with Civic Center, Denver. I see that the two are sufficiently different and both notable. It doesn't matter that the city calls the neighborhood Civic Center; if Golden Triangle is more commonly used than that should be the article title. But this is another discussion unrelated to deletion. MB 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are still wrong. No, the article was not "almost entirely about the 'historic district'". If you actually read the two articles (Before I started fixing them) then you'd see that they are pretty much carbon copies. The Civic Center article focused a lot on the history of the park as well, but did it better anyways. You mention that it talks about the architectural style, but it was literally for a single sentence. A sentence that was rightfully just copied over to the correct article. You see them as sufficiently different only because you don't actually understand what they are. Civic Center and the Golden Triangle and the same thing, or at least so similar that they don't need two articles. They have the same borders, the same history, the same buildings, the same everything. As a last thing, the city actually doesn't even call the historic district Golden Triangle. It still calls it Civic Center. Golden Triangle is the colloquial name for Civic Center. Nothing else. If you want to assert something else, you are going to have to come up with evidence. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. The Civic Center park and district around the park has lots of history and is obviously notable. It should have an article. We already have an article,, Civic Center that is mostly about that should be kept (and possibly renamed, defined better, etc). This article, Golden Triangle is about a large neighborhood with different borders. It should be kept also as it is independently notable. Just because in some instances Golden Triangle and Civic Center both refer to the same neighborhood doesn't negate the fact that we can/should have one article about the neighborhood and one article about the civic area (the park and government buildings), regardless of what either is titled. MB 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that this should be framed as a merger proposal, and I am not sure if this should be done at AFD instead of by the usual merger proposal tagging and discussion process. However from past experience it seems hard to stop an AFD once started, so maybe the merger proposal should be discussed here. But no one is really arguing for outright deletion, are they? At most a merger with redirect(s) left behind from one or both. Would the better merged name be "Civic Center" or "Golden Triangle" or "Golden Triangle--Civic Center" or "Civic Center--Golden Triangle"? Is there any source out there which refers to them/this in a way reflecting both names?
Some are saying the two are different names for more or less the same area. In which case both names should appear as alternatives in bold in the first sentence of a merged article. Right? Could a merged article be written which has a paragraph or section about each name, and where it came from and what it emphasizes, even though some say their areas largely overlap? I would assume that the "Civic Center" label is more emphasizing the presence of various important government buildings, while "Golden Triangle" may emphasize business or whatever else might be golden, and/or maybe triangular shape? Even though some definitions of area might be exactly the same, I am sure that there must be others which do not exactly overlap, and which emphasize different blocks/buildings/aspects. I may comment more later. --Doncram (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some kind of merge makes sense. I've already merged the info as much as possible, so I assumed a redirect could work. I can't find any source that clearly lays out the difference. From what I understand, Civic Center is both the official name of the neighborhood, the name of the park there, and the name of a historic district that encompasses the park. Golden Triangle is a local name for the neighborhood of Civic Center. Thus, Golden Triangle should just redirect to Civic Center. If we wanted two articles then there should be Civic Center (Neighborhood) and Civic Center (Park) or something like that. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like how the Five Points article incorporates RiNo into its name on the template for the neighborhoods of Denver. If Five Points and RiNo can work as one article, Civic Center and Golden Triangle absolutely can. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the term "Civic Center" has a generally understood meaning. A "civic center" is on the size level of what is apparently the Civic Center Historic District in Denver, i.e. 2 to 5 blocks in size, consisting of government department buildings and other public buildings and plazas/parks in between, especially plazas/parks holding statues/memorials serving government purposes. A "civic center" is not merely a park or plaza with no government buildings, nor is it a large neighborhood of several dozen or more blocks that contains any commercial or residential areas. I happen to be aware of fact that in some cities, the term Civic Center is used for just one building which combines multiple government depts/functions and an auditorium/concert hall.
See Civic Center, San Francisco, which is about original plans and later actual developments for a small area including concentration of very governmental buildings plus plazas. One version was a diamond- or plus-sign-shaped five block area of governmental and art museum buildings around a plaza/park.
The "Five Points" example is a good one. There is a general understanding of what a "five points" is, with the one in NYC being the most famous I am sure. It is literally a five-way intersection itself or a small area centered on that, going at most, say, 1/2 block down each of the streets. On a literal level, I simply do not believe the lede in the Five Points, Denver article, which asserts that "Five Points is..." a neighborhood or large district. No, literally a "five points" is one intersection, and sure, then there can also be a Five Points District or a Five Points Neighborhood which is a large neighborhood. However I am sure that it is okay to say that in Denver "Five Points" alone is also used as a shorter term for the large neighborhood as a whole, and even to say that in Denver "Five Points" nowadays rarely refers to the original area of the intersection of X, Y, and Z streets alone.
About "Civic Center" usage for Denver, it would help a lot if there was clear discussion up front that the actual/real "civic center" is a small area, probably pretty much the area that is included in the Civic Center Historic District. While the usage by the city of "Civic Center" to refer to a large district is pretty much a misnomer, a misapplication of the term, to refer to the large district also commonly known as the Golden Triangle because it is mostly a commercial area (if that is true) and/or includes most of the original commercial core of Denver (if that is true) and is triangular in shape. Is that about right? --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A photo in Civic Center, Denver article, with caption there "Civic Center from the Colorado State Capitol."
Regardless if Civic Center is a misnomer, that is the name of the neighborhood as decided by the city. We at Wikipedia do not get to decide what neighborhoods are called. I'm all for clearing up confusing in the opener of the article. Golden Triangle is the name of a neighborhood organization. There are hundreds of these in Denver and certainly they don't deserve their own article. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't decide what neighborhoods are called, but we do decide on the titles of WP articles about them. The official name is one consideration, but the WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence. If the neighborhood is more commonly called Golden Triangle, then that should be the WP article name also. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have shown that it is more commonly called Civic Center though. I listed out the reasons pretty clearly down at the bottom of the page in my last edit. If anything we should have two articles named Civic Center, one for the neighborhood and one for the park/historic district. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the current Civic Center, Denver is about proposals for, and development of, a City Beautiful-era real civic center: a park/boulevard area surrounded by government buildings. Then bizarrely there are confused other usages, like a claim about average house prices, which must be a claim about the much larger Civic Center District / Golden Triangle large neighborhood. Obviously there are no houses in a civic center. I believe that the photo at right is a picture of a real civic center (except it excludes showing the Colorado State Capitol itself), and I tend now to believe that "Civic Center" in Denver commonly means the actual civic center. I tend now to believe there needs to be one article about the actual civic center, and one about the big neighborhood. There has been mention of a park named Civic Center. Is that literally true? If so, that needs to be described as another misnomer, because a park cannot be a civic center. Or is it actually officially named "Civic Center Park" or something like that? --Doncram (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
I could agree that one article for the Civic Center historic district and one for the neighborhood, though I still feel like they could probably be in one article. And yes it is officially named "Civic Center Park". I live right next to it. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, please look at the version of Civic Center, Denver from before the recent changes by Bluedude. That was more focused on the smaller district around the civic buildings. There certainly is a Civic Center Park, the green space around the state capitol and some other buildings. I think that can be covered within the article on the Civic Center since it is so closely related. But I think we agree that there should definitely be one article on the triangular shaped neighborhood and another on the civic buildings & park. MB 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you keep attacking my edits. I didn't remove anything, and I actually even improved the parts on the civic buildings by adding sources. What was covered in that article needed to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood, not just a district. Create one about the smaller district if you want, but that's not what this article is really about. Maybe the current article needs to be renamed Civic Center, Denver (Neighborhood) and then the other one Civic Center, Denver (District or Park). Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I have said was that you concluded before the AFD was over that Golden Triangle should be merged into Civic Center and started make those changes. You just stated that the article needs to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood. That conclusion has not gained consensus. Civic Center may be the official city name for the Golden Triangle neighborhood, but that does not necessarily drive WP. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I should have stated that MB invited to take a look at this AFD (which I would probably have gotten to soon, anyhow, as I generally review AFDs about places and this is the kind that I would comment in). MB and I have cooperated in the past about a lot of houses and historic districts listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places; we are both active members of wp:NRHP.
Hey i think you both are partly right. This version from November 5, before Bluedude588's edits was clearly already about the big neighborhood / district, and did include what i am calling "confusion" already. Also much of it was clearly about the original civic center idea. The first sentence is absolutely stating the article is about the neighborhood. The rest of the first paragraph only goes on about stuff in the actual civic center though. The first paragraph was:

Civic Center is a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado. The area is known as the center of the civic life in the city, with numerous institutions of arts, government, and culture as well as numerous festivals, parades, and protests throughout the year. The park bearing the same name is home to a fountain, several statues, and formal gardens, and includes a Greek amphitheater, a war memorial, and the Voorhies Memorial Seal Pond. It is well known for its symmetrical Neoclassical design.

Bluedude588 must have added the average house price mention (which is okay in an article about a neighborhood), and is obviously going with the neighborhood/district concept, and wants to develop about the neighborhood. I take it that MB might want to go with the civic center concept and might want to develop about the historic district.
There is currently no article about the historic district; Civic Center Historic District (Denver, Colorado) shows currently as a redlink in National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Denver. "Denver City Center" appears in List of NHLs in CO but links to the Civic Center, Denver article, which i think does not mention the National Historic Landmark status at all. The list of NHLS includes this document with multiple maps which describes the National Historic Landmark District, and the highly overlapping NRHP district and the highly overlapping local historic district.
To move forward now, I and/or MB should develop a proper article about the actual civic center and the overlapping historic districts and National Historic Landmark. That might be done in a new article, rather than converting/refocusing the Civic Center, Denver article, though that should be cannibalized to copy/move the City Beautiful stuff to the new article. Maybe that should go at Denver Civic Center (currently just a redirect), which I think is the legal name for the National Historic Landmark. Or, we could convert/refocus the Civic Center, Denver article, and Bluedude588 could "take over" the current Golden Triangle article and make it properly convey about the big district / official neighborhood?
How about this: let's all pause on wrestling about the current Civic Center, Denver article. While I and/or MB create a draft new article about the civic center proper and the historic districts only, at Talk:Civic Center, Denver/Draft about civic center proper (a redlink subpage of a Talk page). And then later revisit this all. I have to go away now for at least several hours. --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of creating an article on the historic districts. We still need to decide on what the name of the neighborhood article should be. I still believe that Golden Triangle should be redirected to the current Civic Center article, and with the current civic center article be renamed Civic Center (Neighborhood). As to which name should encompass the neighborhood (Civic Center or Golden Triangle) I want to link two pages. Denver Post crimes by neighborhood. Denver Gov website that lists it as Civic Center. Also want to point out that on Google Maps the area is only listed as Civic Center. The highlighted part of the map on the Golden Triangle article itself calls it civic center. And anecdotally, I live in Denver. People call it Civic Center. I've suspected that the whole Golden Triangle thing is to lure tourists to the area, but that's just speculation. If our goal in naming articles is to not confuse people, I think we should use the name that appears in most other spots, with a clarification in the article that it is sometimes called "Golden Triangle" Bluedude588 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might go to the library today and see if I can find anything on the history of the names of this neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here's Denver's official neighborhoods map. Again, I think 'Golden Triangle' is an invention of real estate agents. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I think there is agreement that there needs to be two articles. By the way some attention should be paid to Wikipedia's Civic center article, which defines the term for covering real civic centers. (Despite it having a stray sentence asserting otherwise with negative notes attached to it, which should be deleted.) This article has not been edited recently. Also there should be acknowledgement that many cities define a set of "pseudo-neighborhoods" for convenience in their planning and delivery of services, with names unfortunately chosen that sort of overlap with common names for real neighborhoods, IMHO.

But which article should become what?

Both articles were created back in 2005, very early in Wikipedia's history, and were complementary, one covering the real city center and one covering the Golden Triangle neighborhood, which is a real thing. Both mentioned, but differentiated themselves from, the Denver-defined neighborhood named "Civic Center".

  • See this first version of "Civic Center, Denver", by editor Vertigo700, on 15 July 2005. Although it starts off saying it is a neighborhood, it is pretty clearly about the actual city center, and mentions the larger Denver-defined neighborhood "Civic Center" as a different thing, in my reading. YMMV. It includes the material about City Beautiful that remains in the article.
  • See this first version of "Golden Triangle, Denver", by editor User:Klestrob44 on 19 September 2005. It is clearly about a big neighborhood, and notes that it largely overlaps with the Denver-defined neighborhood but is specifically different in its boundaries, going one block further one way, for example. It included good material which should probably be restored.

I guess with some reluctance that we probably do not want two separate articles about the mostly-overlapping big neighborhoods; one article should cover them both (and respect that there are some differences).

Since 2005, evidently, editors have been arriving at the Civic Center, Denver article with varying expectations. Some have taken steps towards coopting it to be about the neighborhood, so it became "confusing" (my term). Now I see that Bluedude588 is making edits as if they assume this discussion is over, as they proceed in developing the Civic Center article to be about the neighborhood. Bluedude588, could you pause please? And the Golden Triangle article has been edited poorly and has also gone downhill and no longer differentiates itself properly from the city services-defined neighborhood.

I happen to take Wikipedia's attribution of contributions pretty seriously, and think it matters that the articles should have their edit history showing the major contributions, especially early ones, that developed the articles. From this point of view then, I would like to take the Civic Center, Denver article and refocus it to be about the real civic center. And I would like for the Golden Triangle article to be developed as the neighborhood one. Bluedude can easily copy in the text they have recently been developing at the other article and get full credit for their wording, while it would be a pain or impossible to fix the edit history by administrative tools. It would seem bizarre to me, and would screw the historic contributors to both articles attribution-wise, if the AFD proposal on the table here (delete or redirect Golden Triangle) went through. Right now, I would rather not create a brand new article about the historic district area; I would like to develop the original article about that, so that old and new contributions in the same vein are together. Bluedude, can you agree to pause your working in the opposite direction? I think you could possibly agree to this overall proposal instead.

About the names for the two articles: how about the one covering the real civic center being moved to, say, "Denver Civic Center", which has some provenance(?) as the actual national-level name for the district as a U.S. National Historic Landmark. This would be replacing the redirect there (which has no meaningful edit history). And for the article now at Golden Triangle, Denver, being moved to "Civic Center, Denver", which seems consistent with naming of Denver's other operations/service areas.

About how the neighborhood article is to be developed: It should show both terms in bold in the first sentence. It needs to give proper prominence to the Golden Triangle term, which is a real thing, and which has some differences with the Denver government-defined neighborhood. There are Wikipedians good at producing maps; a request should be made for a map showing the boundary outlines of both the city-defined neighborhood and the Golden Triangle merchants association definition of their area. --Doncram (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I suggest this AFD should be closed with "Keep" decision, consistent with the original two complementary articles and with consensus again now that there should be two complementary articles. For clarity in next steps, the closer should state that the article at "Golden Triangle, Denver" is again to be the one about the neighborhood, and the "Civic Center, Denver" article is again to be the one about the real civic center. If the participants here can quickly agree on names for the two articles, that would be great. Otherwise a formal wp:RM should be opened to consider renaming both articles. IMO, the wp:RM process is a good one attracting regular participants who are better at renamings than are the regulars at AFD. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Thanks for all the effort here. You dug into the article history more than I did, going back to their creation. You have provided more reasons that I did why Civic Center, Denver should be about the real civic center (which I think it mostly was except for a few stray things about the neighborhood) and Golden Triangle, Denver should be about the neighborhood. I looked at the nom form for the HD and the formal name is "Civic Center Historic District" and the given common name in that document is "Civic Center". It goes from Delaware St on the west to Grant St on the east (beyond the eastern boundary of the neighborhood). The NHL uses "Denver Civic Center", but it has a smaller boundary than the NRHP HD. Searching for "Civic Center Denver" brings lots of hits to Civic Center Park, this quote "Civic Center is a 12-acre urban oasis anchoring one of the grandest architectural campuses in America." from [84], some very close places like the Civic Center Station (bus station) just north of Colfax Ave, the building at 1560 Broadway is also called One Civic Center Plaza. I find very few things that refer to the neighborhood (even though it is officially called Civic Center by the city). So I still think the best name for the article is its current name, Civic Center, Denver.
As far as the name for the neighborhood article, if I search on "Golden Triangle", I find all kinds of hits using that name, various news sources including Denver Post, hotels.com, zillow.com, nextdoor.com, zagat.com, grubhub.com, yelp.com, and so on. On top of all that, I found the city of Denver planning department using the "unofficial name" [85] !!!! It seems to be more than just a few realtors trying to promote the area with a better name. Even in google maps, if I search for "Civic Center Denver", it highlights the triangle and labels it "Golden Triangle" at the top and also "Civic Center" [86]. So I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the current name, Golden Triangle, Denver is the most common name for the neighborhood. I agree with you that if there is no consensus here on this, then a RM discussion should be opened. MB 03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything that has been said except the naming of the articles. The neighborhood's official and most common name is Civic Center. I don't know why everything that I have pointed out in regards to the naming has been ignored. Civic Center is also mentioned as the name on the Denver Post, nextdoor, ect. And I don't see what you mean by your Google Maps link. I see nothing there that says Golden Triangle. The neighborhood's name is not Golden Triangle. More sources call it Civic Center. Here's a simple test. Google "Map of Denver Neighborhoods" and look at the results. The VAST majority of maps depict it as "Civic Center". Why are so many people suggesting to name it by its less common, and less official, name? Make a Civic Center (Neighborhood) and a Civic Center (Park). I'm messaging a history professor at Metro about this for some input too. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the professor I messaged. And he backs up what I said. To quote: "As far as I know, it's basically a marketing ploy. In the 90s, LoDo became the first Denver neighborhood marketed as the next great thing, essentially a way to package gentrification and remaking a crumbling area. Golden Triangle is a lot like LoHi, RiNo, and other invented identities to market an up and coming area to potential buyers.". Using Google's search by date function I could confirm that there isn't any references to Golden Triangle until around 1998. He also recommended looking at a book called "Denver Landmarks and Historic Districts ", so hopefully I can find that at the library or something. But I was right. It seems more like a relevantly recent rebranding. The neighborhood article on Wikipedia should be called Civic Center. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information Update So I ended up going to the library. Apparently all the city-defined Denver neighborhoods came about in the early 70s. Here is an article about it. Then I found a book called "DIA and Other Scams" by Phil Goodstein. It states that the term Golden Triangle came about in the late 1970s, around the time that the area started be invested more in. Interestingly, I guess the area's original common name was "Evans Addition". Bluedude588 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I threw the naming question to the people of the Denver subreddit. Here's what they said. Overwhelming majority said that they call it Civic Center. Civic Center is both the common and the legal name for the neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. This is an AFD not the wp:RM that can follow later. It would help others not have to read all this, Bluedude588, if you would agree that the consensus is that both articles need to be kept. Then we could move on to the renaming issue, which is not settled here because there is not agreement here and this is not the forum to handle that. --Doncram (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i think Bluedude588 did agree further above that 2 articles are needed. No one disagrees about that. This AFD is ready to be closed with "Keep" outcome, and perhaps with direction to proceed to wp:RM next, if the closer feels it is necessary to say that. --Doncram (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you set up the RM? I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the consensus is that both articles should be kept. I don't think Golden Triangle is really a thing. Wikipedia has been successfully used to 'legitimize' the Golden Triangle name to promote the interests of a few. There's no article called "The Sunflower State" because the article for Kansas covers this. One entity, one article. Encyclopedias don't have multiple articles for the same thing. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that there could be two articles, with one for the park/historic district and one for the neighborhood. The current two articles could serve as a base to that, but just with the Golden Triangle one being renamed. Do you agree with that? Bluedude588 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of the original proposal — to delete the Golden Triangle article. --Jeffrey Beall 16:41, 14 December 2019
I think all are participating here in good faith, but I think there is a procedural misunderstanding in effect. It remains the fact that all participating want for there to be an article about the big triangular-shaped neighborhood, and I am pretty sure that no one objects to there being a separate article about the actual civic center which is clearly notable on its own (being the subject of 3 separate historic district listings, and there being plenty to say about it). I suppose someone could potentially argue for keeping two separate big neighborhood articles, but no one has argued for that. Jeffrey Beale, we are agreeing about that; we don't want one Kansas article and one "Sunflower State" article, we just want one article that presents/explains both names which apply to the same thing.
As I have said above, then it seems right and good to me for the 2005 article about the actual civic center (the article currently named "Civic Center, Denver") to be designated for use in making the historic district article, and for the 2005 article about the big triangular neighborhood (the article currently named "Golden Triangle, Denver") to be designated for use in making the big triangular neighborhood article.
I hear what Jeffrey Beall (JB) is saying, that they want the article currently named "Golden Triangle" article deleted, but I understand that to be, well, like a political or negotiating stance, because they really really dislike the "Golden Triangle" term and they want it abolished. JB, I think you can/should express/explain your dislike for that name in the wp:RM which should happen, and also on the Talk page of the big neighborhood article going forward. I happen to think both names for the big neighborhood should be given in the article about the big neighborhood, but I am open to discussion about what sources actually say, which is what should "win" consensus in the Talk discussions going forward. (Frankly some sources above where the City of Denver calls it the Golden Triangle neighborhood are pretty convincing to me that it is a name which should at least be mentioned, but this is a side debate IMHO.) I suppose that JB could think this is important in terms of tactics towards "winning" the naming question, because the default in a disputed, equally divided RM would be to keep the original name. To JB, perhaps this helps: I myself don't think the big neighborhood article's name matters; I am willing to go along with it reflecting "Civic Center" somehow and not showing "Golden Triangle" in the article name itself (though I do currently think the latter term has to be mentioned and there has to be a redirect from it). Honestly I think a proper wp:RM will work fine.
Anyhow, given JB's position, there is not unanimous consensus here, so this AFD cannot be settled "Speedy Keep"; an admin or non-admin closer has make a decision in the presence of disagreement. IMO, the only reasonable decision is "Keep", plus perhaps direction to the participants to use the wp:RM process about the articles' naming going forward plus use the Talk page of the big neighborhood article to debate whether it should mention "Golden Triangle" or not. I don't think the closer should try to make a decision about what the final names of articles should be, because AFD is not the right forum for that and we haven't been trying to properly discuss/decide that.
The only alternative possible, and what I think JB wants, is to decide a) to delete the 2005 article about big neighborhood, b) allow creation of a new separate article about the actual city center, and c) usurp/transform (or continue the usurption/transformation that has already started) the 2005 article about the actual civic center to be about the big neighborhood instead. However, if that were done, IMHO it would be necessary for administrators to do edit history merges to put the 2005-and-on history of the civic center into the new article, and to move the edit history from 2005-and-on of the neighborhood to put that into the transformed article. This is unreasonable. Actually I think (am not sure) that admin tools have limits and might not be able to achieve what is necessary to make the history show properly, i.e. to put in place exactly what is directly accomplished by taking what I call the "reasonable" decision. I think it is far better to simply acknowledge here that JB and Bluedude588 do indeed have strong opinions about what the big neighborhood article is named going forward, and about whether it mentions the "Golden Triangle" name or not. Fine. I cannot imagine they really care about what the past edit history shows, as long as they get their way in the naming and content going forward. (However, IMHO the edit history from 2005 on does matter, meeting our commitment to editors that they should get reasonable credit in the edit history for what they contributed.)
I'm sorry this has gotten so long, and I will try not to comment any much further. I think everything needed to be said has been said, and I do think this is ready to be closed (with "Keep" decision). --Doncram (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say that I agree with what you wrote here. And personally I am fine with the name Golden Triangle being mentioned in the article about the neighborhood. I just don't think it should be the title. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having read the above, this AfD is probably heading for a "no consensus" close but with a comment that there is a "weak, but not unanimous, consensus" that there should be two articles, but disagreement over the names/titles of those articles (a concern that "Golden Triangle" is not the appropriate name), and thus an RM is needed to resolve. Have I got that right?. Britishfinance (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say it should be "keep" based on the weight of the arguments (but I am involved). Since "no consensus" gives the same result, either way there will need to be a follow-up RM to resolve the names/titles. MB 14:56, 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 delete. Despite Barkeep49's relist, no further arguments to demonstrate notability have occurred, and consensus has moved further towards deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Joli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justine Joli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} –(ViewAfD · [87]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per two previous AfDs and the numerous covers of major publications she has been on, which easily meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Ifnord (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Things change over time, past discussions are not relevant, and the "numerous covers of major publications" is not truthful. Zaathras (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She appeared on the cover of the March 2002 issue of Hustler and High Society (USA) Holiday 2001, Vol. 26, Iss. 13. Perhaps I should have clarified "adult" publications, but major nonetheless. Ifnord (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria that is usable here, wp:porn bio was deprecated, and people like this now go by plain WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the general notability policy. Notability is not temporary, but when the criteria that an article was once judged on is no longer applicable, then we have to reevaluate this person under the present standards. Zaathras (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. Being "a titty mag covergirl isn't a criteria". Being on the cover of a major international publication is though. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When that major international publication is a titty mag, it actually isn't. I have perused Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion and more than a few of those red linked pages tried, and failed, to get by on a cover girl, Pet of the Month, criteria. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see we're trotting out logical fallacies now. This is fun! —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the cover of a phonographic magazine is not an inherently notable thing. One does not need fallacies to note that your assertion is unsupported by policy. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete citations given are primary sources (interviews, data/fact sheets), fleeting mentions (Village Voice (archive), where she is just "girlfriend of..."), or exaggerated ("a supporting role in the softcore television series" when she is listed 13th in sequence of importance on the imdb page). Zaathras (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not temporary. "Things change over time" does not apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I agree with *some* of the “pruning” seen here, I think she meets GNG. I would be surprised if there wasn’t more available about her marijuana business. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After the nominator of the last deletion discussion failed to get the article deleted, they went on a massive trimming spree, removing entire sections of the article. I intend to undo most of their removals, but to see a prior version before the trimming, see here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would revert your edits as uncalled-for. The editor in question appears to have rightfully removed meaningless fluff about the subjuct's mother driving her to auditions, purported threeways, and her boy/girl preferences. You should also lay off calling others disgruntled editors, as well as casting aspersions on their motivations for editing an article. Zaathras (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never cast aspersions. I'm flat out saying they were angry their proposed deletion did not succeed and effectively vandalized the article days after the AfD notice was removed. As to the rest, well, I'm not saying the article is perfect, but trimming entire sections doesn't work either. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If doubling-down on your personal attacks is what you feel is a persuasive argument to make, then Godspeed. Zaathras (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. In re "Things change over time" does not apply: the previous two closes occurred while PORNBIO was still in effect. With PORNBIO deprecated, there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it meets those two, and PORNBIO is irrelevant as prior to those other closes she would have met the basic requirements. PORNBIO is a red herring here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough coverage compiled from several reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. [88][89][90][91] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary is not applicable in this circumstance. In fact WP:NTEMP specifically says While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion." Those who are suggesting that there is notability would benefit from pointing to specific sourcing that points to notability per GNG or a SNG, otherwise as this is not a vote appropriate weight will mean this is closed as delete. Relisting to give those suggesting notability more time to demonstrate notability given previous AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments about "past notability" are misplaced. What matters today is whether or not a subject meets the notability criteria of today, and these criteria do, of course, include past notability. In other words, if the subject per today's criteria has been notable in the past, it's worth an entry in Wikipedia, generally speaking.[note 1]
The criteria for porn stars have changed and now people under this category are supposed to meet the WP:NACTOR criteria. Our subject clearly does not. The sources offered as evidence of her notability amount to a New York article about someone else entirely and where subject is name-dropped once; an article in "industry" magazine AVN about her appearance in an Off-Broadway theatrical piece; two pieces, one in the French Vice and one in CNBC about legal pot-selling that mention our subject; and so on. We do not even have WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guidelines and the fail of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not gonna lie, but I really don't see how she doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or specifically WP:NACTOR. She's been covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication, and there are numerous sources to back that up. Her coverage in mainstream sources is also there. If she weren't a pornographer, I feel like this discussion wouldn't be going the way it has. So with that said: WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, and I'll say it again: notability is not temporary. Deprecating WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Locke Cole. Care to support the claim about her being "covered repeatedly in print publications as the primary topic of the publication" with some sources? I've dealt above with the previous attempt at presenting sources but there might be something out there still. And, as far as I'm concerned, I reject the allegation that her being a former porn star affects the way my suggestion went. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

References

  1. ^ Per WP:N, [the fact that a topic] meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific [notability] guideline is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Visit Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the article. czar 07:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Girl: The Peg Entwistle Story[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article are regurgitated press releases, and I can't find any independent reviews or other sources that would establish notability. I notice that the article creator is heavily involved with Draft:Laura Liguori; this article was likely created as a means of getting the draft accepted at AfC. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)[edit]

List of spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of in-universe minutia. This neither establishes notability for the whole or proves itself to be a necessary content fork. The ships can easily be described in the context of the plot without needing trivial details presented on this page. This just plot information for the sake of plot information. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The purging of fictional elements lists continues ... Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As complete fancruft, per WP:TNT. However, I do think it's possible for someone to make a smaller, referenced list. There are decent mentions out there, like this one about the Battlestar Galactica from the 2004 series.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:54, 9 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deleted. BD2412 T 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy White (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the references currently in the article are a directory listing and an award roster. Mr. White's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only a few mentions in the biography of a different pornographic performer[92]. The article was kept at AfD in 2006, when having appeared in a large number of pornographic films was taken as an indication of notability. Cheers, gnu57 02:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, no significant coverage anywhere in RS. buidhe 02:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andromeda races[edit]

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

Bare-bones, non-notable list of in-universe minutia from a decade ago. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 9 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ "About Karachi". www.kmc.gos.pk. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_9&oldid=1142224549"