Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 December	1 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. and SALT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmee Jannat

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

Not enough notable. Costume designer of one movie does not make anyone notable. Even she have not won any major national or international notable fashion designing award. Failed WP:ANYBIO WP:NMODEL . Even the creator is also have COI Bbemoni (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still as non-notable as when this article was last deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect from its creation for a third time, per WP:CSD, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM, WP:SALT, and WP:MILL. This was just deleted 22 months ago. I don't see how anything's changed for her notability, and I can't assume good faith here that I could have in 2007 or 2012. In 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a charity, not a random web host for free resume services. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable actress fail WP:NMODEL. If we look the lead role then it's just work a single movie, So eligible for WP:BLP1E. i didn't think it was significant to have some Bengali reference. Since She has not won any major national or internationally significant fashion designing awards Fail GNG. I saw before this article Multiple time using WP:CSD as like [here]. I believe that this article WP:COIEDIT related. Agree with this article was previous deleted.~ Nocturnal^talk 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion : protect this article from re-create next time. And nominate for XFD in other language which is this article available —Bbemoni (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2020 (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, borderline WP:SNOW. It is well noted that there are events discussed in this article that are not at all speculative. BD2412 T 00:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in archosaur paleontology

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

This is an example of many similarly titled pages for which I can not identify any notability. In one sense this AfD is a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable. For the record, there is no article "2020 in botany" yet botany is a much larger field of scientific research. The issues I have is that there is nothing to indicate that the topic as a whole is notable. No sources are produced for "2020 in archosaur palaeontology" as a notable topic. All the individual entries are sourced to primary sources. There is no apparent discrimination about what is and what is not included. Everything is also speculative, at least for the next 30 minutes. It appears that anything is included if it is reported in the year 2020 and has any bearing whatsoever on archosaur palaeontology. The list is indiscriminate in its inclusion. A much better example list is at 2019 in science into which this type of content could easily be assimilated using only those entries supported by RS. I can see no relevant guidelines that suggests this list qualifies when tested against WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is one of the subpages of 2020 in paleontology, created in an attempt to avoid creating pages that are too long to navigate comfortably. It would be possible to incorporate all content from this and similar pages into 2020 in paleontology, but it would eventually lead to that page growing to an enormous size. As for the matter of the list being indiscriminate in its inclusion, as noted on the talk page of WikiProject Palaeontology, the scope implied by the title and header is broad (it doesn't, for example, restrict itself just to mentions of new taxa), and the discussions on the talk page of this project or elsewhere so far did not result in the imposition of any rules strictly regulating what type of research should or shouldn't be mentioned. In fact it is difficult (if possible at all) to instantly determine how significant particular studies are - for instance, a study on the age of a geological formation that doesn't generate much interest in the media in the long term might be more important for paleontology than a description of a new taxon that initially generated more interest. I find it confusing that you contrast this page with 2019 in science, as the scope of that page implied by the title and header is, if anything, much broader and less discriminate in its inclusion. Finally, the claim that everything on the list is speculative is factually incorrect - no study on the list was formally published before 2020 (though they were announced earlier), and some studies are already specifically scheduled to be published in the issues of scientific journals that are scheduled to be published in 2020 (for example, there are already four issues of Cretaceous Research scheduled for 2020).--37.30.52.209 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can explain what inclusion criteria are used here? For example, Thanos simonatti, was described in 2018 and listed in PBDB as described in 2018. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far only the advance online version of the article naming it, not assigned to any published issue, was made available on the website of the Historical Biology journal. According to article 8.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, such an electronic work must be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. The advance online version of the article naming Thanos does not contain evidence in the work itself that registration in Zoobank has occurred, so it doesn't constitute a published work according to ICZN. Therefore, Thanos wasn't validly named in the advance online version of the HB article. It will be validly named once the article naming it will be published in a print version of one of the issues of Historical Biology.--188.146.102.58 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the enthusiasm and committent to advancing the course of palaeontology but none of the arguments advanced so far address the issue of notability, the absence of RS for either the topic or the individual entries or, as Maksim Dolgun re-iterates, the lack of any criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia asks for secondary or tertiary sources to support inclusion and requires multiple reliable and independent sources to attest to the notability of the topic. This has none of these. I think that this may be an excellent list, but just not a Wikipedia list . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks that this article has the right to exist, because every year paleontologists make a significant number of discoveries related to archosaurs, but we must clean it and replace some paleontological discoveries to articles about 2018/2019 in archosaur paleontology. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is no reason to exist. Every year biochemists make a significant number of discoveries related to ADAM17. We don't need a page every year listing the results of all the primary research papers. ----Pontificalibus 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Velella: What, precisely, is your argument regarding the article itself? The arguments you bring up don't really seem to refer to the article as such, but rather to the content within the article. However, WP:GNG which you brought up yourself specifically state that notability guidelines in general do not apply to content within an article. Also, please explain why in your opinion 2019 in science which you brought up (the article as such, not the specific contents of the article) fullfills the criterium of the notability of the topic, but the article we discuss doesn't.--188.146.102.58 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: the article as such functions as a list and therefore should meet the criteria of a list as under Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. There it is stated:

Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:

   *Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia

This criterion is met, as every taxon entered is obviously notable under any rational interpretation of notability.

Furthermore, "Chronological lists" are in the policy generally accepted as a valid category.

And WP:Notability notes:

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability

The informational purpose here is obvious.

Lastly, proposing an article for deletion as "a test of consensus to determine whether this and many similarly names articles are notable" is a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and therefore a forbidden action. If you want policy changed or established, this is not the proper way.--MWAK (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to either test policy or change policy. What I wanted to avoid was swamping AfD with a whole list of articles that all were equally lacking in notability. It was, and remains possible that I overlooked a notability criteria and I would be happy to be learn of such guidance. Nothing I have seen to date persuades me to that view however. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2020 in paleontology is sufficient. The reason this is too big to fit there is that it lists every research paper in the field. We should only be listing major discoveries and providing wikilinks to new taxa etc. Listing all the publications is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. ----Pontificalibus 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This and similar lists do not list every research paper in the field. Furthermore, not only I doubt that your proposed solution would prevent one page for all paleontological research from growing too large and difficult to navigate, I doubt even more radical trimming than the one you advocate would prevent that. Even a list of all new fossil taxa described during a particular year and of nothing else would contain hundreds of taxa, if not more, every year. And besides, this is a complaint about the content of the page rather than about the page as such.
  The guidelines about the content that should be included listed in the article header in its current form are admittedly broad and general. The talk page of the WikiProject Palaeontology had at least one discussion about possible restriction of the criteria for included content, but it seems to have fizzled out without reaching any conclusion. If you find the article too inclusive, perhaps you should consider reopening that discussion. And in case of the discussion resulting in the imposition of new criteria of inclusion, perhaps 2020 in paleontology would, indeed, be sufficient (though, for reasons noted above, I doubt it would actually be the case). But this hasn't happened yet, and your claim that 2020 in paleontology is already sufficient is, at best, not self-evident.--188.146.99.74 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Paleontology is a very diverse field, with multiple disciplines that do not have much in common. Significant advances in one of these disciplines do usually not mean much (if anything) for the other disciplines. This is very different to most other fields of science. Granting each discipline a separate list is the best solution imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MWAK. These lists are highly useful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per MWAK. These lists have always been useful. They fulfill the requirements to be a standalone list, and the subpages fit the requirements to be split off due to parent page length. Imagine putting all of the subpages of 2019 in paleontology into that single article, it would be unnavigable. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per previous users. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MWAK et al. With respect to comments about notability and sourcing, I think most users uninvolved with the project do not realize that the primary objective of palaeontology is taxonomy. One paper is sufficient to establish a new genus and/or species as being notable, pursuant to the aims of the meta-project WP:WikiProject Tree of Life, so long as the taxon meets proper requirements for the registration of the name. In addition, we are already being quite strict with what we consider to be notable: we, as a general principle, do not have distinct articles for species within genera, unlike most other projects under the meta-project. There is also a long list of dubious names which we do not grant status as separate articles, but instead address under List of informally named dinosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I think there needs to be more stringent inclusion requirements for non-taxonomic research (e.g. non-taxonomic research must be supported by reporting in a popular source and/or be significant to the literature in some other way). This in no way diminishes the validity of the article as a whole, which is first and foremost a curated list of new taxa. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, whenever I edited articles like the one that's discussed, I considered studies providing new information on fossil taxa in matters such as, for example, skeletal anatomy, soft tissues, life history, diversity, evolutionary relationships and geographical distribution to be significant studies. But I will admit that this came from my own judgement, as the guidelines from the article header are not detailed on that point, and the sheer vastness of the field led to the articles becoming very long. Seeing that the additions of new taxa are largely uncontroversial, I will be only adding those from now on until more detailed guidelines about the content allowed in such articles are implemented. Thank you for your comment--188.146.99.74 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't feel impeded to keep adding the other research. The guidelines are already there and they are crystal-clear. WP:Notability nowhere demands that notability is justified by a "popular" source. It states:

Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications

Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY simply does not forbid such lists. Read it :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is worth noting that this resource is by far the most comprehensive list of paleontological research on the internet, and is used by actual paleontologists to keep up with the hectic output of modern research. Vetebrate paleontology as a field consits of probably less than 3,000 researchers and there is far more amateur interest in the topic than there is for some obscure part of biochemistry. @188.146.99.74: I would personally like that you keep including all relevant research papers, as you seem to be able to find all papers of interest, which is really useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep, per MWAK, and with the notation that if you look at in archosaur Paleontology on Jan 4, 2019 Versus the Current version you can see just how much it grew over the year, so it will just need to be recreated in a month anyways. Also, @Velella: there IS infact a 2020 in botany, correctly placed at 2020 in Paleobotany.--Kev min § 20:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abyssal (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. Paleontology is a big science with many directions. Furthermore, this article is very useful. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The function of this list as a navigational aid is clear enough for me. It's hard to argue that the topic of the list is narrow and that the list is "indiscriminate" (maybe not impossible, but certainly hard). We could argue over the inclusion criteria, but this isn't the forum for that. Nor is being "speculative" really a concern here, when the "future events" in question are things like a scientific paper, already accepted at a journal and scheduled for publication, being officially printed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting it because its too short and doesn't have enough sources yet is a bit foolish, as it is covering all that will happen in the coming year; if we delete it now its just gonna be recreated in short order. Its not particularly speculative, and it follows summary style (2020 in paleontology has this as a subpage, which keeps both articles of manageable length). However, once 2020 is over, and if the article still has few or no sources, then another deletion discussion could be warranted. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a navigational purpose as stated in the guide WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful for navigation and informational. Plenty will happen in 2020 archosaur paleontology, we just started the year. Eostrix (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Clifford

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

Local policician and small-town mayor. I did a WP:BEFORE search on google, and I couldn't even find as much coverage as one might expect for a local council member and mayor. What was in the article before was only an official profile, arguably not even independent. I found and added to the article LA Times coverage of a small local scandal. But this does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, and I can't find anything else. (Note: this came to my attention via a report at WP:UAA, see my user talk page for follow-ups if you are interested.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hyper local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all small-city mayors are notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glendora CA is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors or city councillors just because they exist — but the referencing is almost entirely primary sources, community hyperlocals in Glendora and blogs, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make him more notable than other local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. Clifford is a local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOLDartslilly (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orodreth

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

Non-notable fictional character. Has some Google scholar hits, but only discussed in-depth in [1]. Fails WP:GNG, as one paragraph in Mythlore isn't enough to establish notability. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:GNG and discusses a notable character. WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orodreth is only discussed in fan communities. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I have found some sources, but all are very much stretching the definition of significant coverage. This is probably the only one to be discussed from a view that is arguably not in-universe. These are all primarily discussing this character from an in-universe perspective, along with the majority of the Google Scholar hits as pointed out by the nominator. According to our article on The Tolkien Society it is devoted to the study and promotion of the life and works of the author and academic J. R. R. Tolkien so that rules out this source. I do not have access to this source, but given the other ones I can only assume that it does not contain significant coverage. All in all, plus the source found by the nominator, I believe that in the highest likelihood it falls just short of our notability requirements. There does not seem to be any one place which is the obvious redirect target, and a merge anywhere would produce undue emphasis on Orodreth. Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 21:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable character. Appears in The Silmarillion which is not one of Tolkien's major works.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack significant coverage needed to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J947 — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Insertcleverphrasehere Dartslilly (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator withdrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danish philosophy

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

There is no meaningful synergy between being Danish and a philosopher. Category:Danish philosophers is quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. It appears that there are a number of country philosophy articles, albeit a lot more developed. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT Wm335td (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Christian Altar

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

Catholic Encyclopedia-sourced stub essentially unchanged since creation in 2012 and which doesn't have any information not already substantially present in Altar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is nothing to merge as a content overlap and not a likely redirect term, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis of two sources, that's all. In theory, an article could be created about Vatican II reforms to the altar, but this isn't it. If you want to take a crack at improving it, please userfy it. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Music

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

Sources both are self-cites, one of closing of this company. EL and WP:BEFORE lack evidence of independent, significant coverage. Tagged for update since 2012 but closed that year. Tagged for notability since 2009 with no significant improvement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 31 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 Nazgûl. Redirecting as an ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angmar

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

Non-notable fictional realm. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources I can find are in passing or primary, and almost all seem to be about the Witch-King, not Angmar itself (and even those references are in passing, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch-king of Angmar). The fact that Angmar has been the setting of a couple video games does not confer notability. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazgûl Angmar's most prominent resident was the leader of the Nazgûl. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be named a few times, but outside of places where it is "Thewitch-king of Angmar" these namings are very rare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 31 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 Florida State Seminoles football#Jimbo Fisher era (2010–2017). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gabbard

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

Fails WP:GNG (can only find coverage from Tallahassee Democrat, including this and this) and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Unfortunately, being a college football long snapper is typically not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida State Seminoles football#Jimbo Fisher era (2010–2017) as if someone was searching up him the best option is that they get redirected to that section; nothing is to be gained by deleting it. I can't find anything better than that local coverage referenced by the nominator and all the sources in the article would seem to either be unreliable or not independent. Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 22:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida State Seminoles football#Jimbo Fisher era (2010–2017) not enough N for students and alone and enough not to delete. Wm335td (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (no major collegiate accomplishments by this long snapper and no national media coverage). Also, my searches did not turn up significant coverage beyond the two articles noted above by Eagles 247, and those articles come from a single source and are insufficient to push Gabbard over the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not support the redirect option in this case. Absent some special circumstance, our practice and precedent is to delete (rather than redirect) articles on non-notable college players. No special circumstances that I see here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm far more inclusionist than most for redirects. I'm perfectly fine with deletion here. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not show significant coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:05, 8 January 2020 (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) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet Jex

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:PROF, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY.~~ Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his work is found in at least two museum collections, the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley. The sourcing of the article has also been improved since the start of the Afd. Curiocurio (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found two additional collections where the artist's work is held, and added them to the article along with citations. Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the artist's work held in the collections of five notable museums, and article improvements. Netherzone (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as Netherzone says.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is ready to be closed. Glad to come here just to see the user name just above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Thanks, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (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 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homie

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

This looks like a dictionary entry, and the wiktionary entry is much better. Eostrix (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it's a fine article, all it lacks is more sources, if those sources are added by the author of someone else, it will be fine. If not, it should be deleted. Puddleglum ^2.0 15:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wrong project. Has no business being in Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Wikitionary article per WP:CHEAP. There's some kids who don't know. Now get off my lawn. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT or not urban dictionary Wm335td (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (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) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bite Back Movement

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

This appears to possibly be WP:TOOSOON as there is only very minor coverage of this supposed movement and neither of the two artists are notable. I also seem to remember another article nearly identical to this under another name (which was an amalgamation of the two artists but cannot recall it at the moment.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nom says, WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable art "movement", as is Alexander Augustus (an artist associated with the the movement) which is also up for deletion. Maybe in a few years time, but now is too soon. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by Netherzone.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL, or redirect per WP:CHEAP to Alexander Augustus, if and only if that second article is kept. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2020 (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, without prejudice against restoring to draft if sources meeting Wikipedia's criteria can be found. BD2412 T 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Horror International Film Festival

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

No evidence this is a notable festival or award. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doesn't even appear to be a festival at this point - the website points you to their facebook page for basically all information, and looking over this year's facebook listings, they have "winners" but no screenings listed. No notability sighted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but film festivals and independent film might not be your field of play. All the things you have listed above is completely false. It is a IMDB listed film festival. There you can see winners of 2019 and years past. Read IMDB's rules and regulations for adding a IMDB certified festival to their website. Please don't report wiki pages when you don't have done a background check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not IMDb, and Wikipedia's standards need not be IMDb's standards, which accepts literally thousands of festivals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknockers99 You're right, film festivals aren't my forte but Wikipedia is. "It's on imdb" is the equivalent of "but it's on facebook!" Completely meaningless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is a directory, not a conferrer of notability. Inclusion in IMDB means absolutely nothing about whether a film, a person involved in it, a production company or a film festival meets our inclusion standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say they list thousands of festivals which of course is true. There has been hundreds of thousands of film festivals through the years. To be listed on IMDB you have to be an established festival.

Praxidicae No it's absolutely not. You can't put up anything on IMDB, especially not film festivals. Please stay to your forte and don't report pages that is of use to the public. Please read the rules of IMDB when it comes to awards and festivals.

I'll put up some examples for you below.

Rules: Be current. Historical Events are not eligible at this time.

Be established for more than 5 years.

Have an official website.

Have a well-established jury or method of selecting winners. For example, anyone can start a website with voting mechanisms, and any would-be critic can select their favourite movies of the year and announce them on their own website or social media profile - these Events are not eligible.

Have received regular international or national press coverage (wide or trade). For example, a nationally broadcast awards ceremony or a festival award winner announced in recognized trade or other media publications would be eligible for listing. An Event with only local news, social media, fan or blog coverage is not eligible for listing at this time.

Wildcard: If the Event does not meet the above criteria, we will consider Events if they have generated a considerable amount of public interest. For example, if a festival premiered a movie that went on to win an Oscar, that Event would be considered for listing (please note, the Event should have played an important part in the movie's release, like a premiere - just screening it does not make the Event eligible unless the other criteria are met).

Why did you report this and call it "a not notable film festival" when it is following these rules of being established?

You have also claimed that they don't have a screening listed. Please watch their festival websites (Which 95% of all film festivals use) and you can see when their deadlines and screenings are scheduled. https://filmfreeway.com/BloodyHorrorFilmFestival

Please, in the future, don't report pages when you aren't familiar to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I checked the filmfreeway page. It has an event date but no actual, y'know, location. And lacking signs of significant coverage, it doesn't look like it qualifies for a Wikipedia page. Merely being an "established" festival in the eyes of IMDb does not make it notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked for coverage in newspapers.com and got 0 results for the term. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources, not notability-making media coverage — and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not Google, I still got not one shred of coverage about this, but merely a couple of stray references to bloody horror films in the Midnight Madness stream at TIFF. Film festivals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist — the notability test for a film festival is demonstrable significance, by virtue of having a volume of reliable source coverage in real media that passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH, but none of the sources here are of the correct type. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMDB's inclusion criteria are not the same as Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and discussion. TheAnayalator (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2020 (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 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting the Witch Path

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

I see no real changes since it was deleted via prod 2 years ago - the only new awards won are not notable and the only other change is that it was released for viewing elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago it was still a film festival film that was not released. Now it is a commercial film that is available world wide through the same distributor that released the Hell House trilogy. To win a award at Norways only genre film festival held at Cinemateket in the capital Oslo is more than notable in northern Europe. The film has also been featured in Scream Magazine which is the most famous horror magazine in the world.

Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia which also must contain films from a independent market that is constantly growing. You can already find several indie film titles searchable through wikipedia. The indie film library (That is released on major platfors) on this encyclopedia is something I would like to help grow and the same goes for different film festivals around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknockers: If you want to create articles about films, then you shouldn't use content that's directly copied from an IMDB description. That's plagiarism. You should write the article in your own words. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am sorry about that. I'll change it right away. Thank you for pointing that out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate solid sources. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — and the notability distinction has exactly jack spit to do with the distinction between the film festival circuit and commercial release, either: film festival films can be notable, and commercially released films can be not notable, because the distinction hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage that the film can show. But the references here are entirely to primary sources and blogs, with not even one reliable or notability-supporting source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2020 (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. I believe there is a consensus that notability as an actor is established Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Irandoost

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

seem to be failing wp:rs Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. How can I provide reliable sources about this actor, when there is a few news websites who interviewed with him? Please give me some guidelines. Thanks MrInfo2012 Talk 14:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that based on notability criteria, he had a significant role in Barareh Nights TV series and after about 15 years, many people remembered him for his role. Although, Barareh Nights is one of the most popular tv comedy series in Iran and Irandoost had the role of "Ghoule Barareh". As you can see, Barareh Nights has the admirable 8.3 score on IMDB, and role of Irandoost on this show was the beginning of his actor career. Another notable work that he played is Deportee 2 which had a huge amount of viewers at the time of premier. In that film, he had the role of Iraqi commander. MrInfo2012 Talk 09:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage. Benyamin (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage. Shfarshid (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall L Saunders

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

Subject of article doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, independent sources - Two references meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [1] Bornstein, David (May 29, 2013). "Lobbying for the Greater Good", (published online by the New York Times) and [2] Motlagh, Rebecca (December 4, 2003). "Coronado Man Finds Satisfaction In Helping Others". The latter is an in-depth article focused solely on the subject, while the former establishes his notability as the founder the Citizens' Climate Lobby. (Please take a look at CCL). A third in-depth reference, [3] Geoffrey, Johnson. "Friendly persuasion" Rotary, was written 18 years after the subject left the Rotary Club. It meets the criteria of "Independent of the subject". Mbcoats (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires more than just two sources. We do not just count up the footnotes and indiscriminately keep everybody who meets or exceeds two — GNG takes into account the geographic range of where the sources are coming from and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and is not just an invariable n>=2.Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to an ideal activist with minor coverage, name mentions, and small profiles, but non-notable. Nothing in-depth, intellectually independent. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read the NYT article--taken along with the other references, it's sufficient. It talks about Saunders with regard to leadership to two separate major organizations. It's an opinion piece by a well known journalst, David Bornstein . Considering the author ,I consider it as reliable as an news story in the nYT. I'd advise people to read it before you !vote. Had I omitted to read it, I might have !voted delete also. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Taking into consideration the size and impact of the organization Saunders founded, CCL, I vote that he is notable. CCL is supported by recognized climate scientists James Hansen and Katharine Hayhoe. Its advisory board includes former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former congressman Bob Inglis, and actor Don Cheadle. The organization has citizen chapters in nearly every U.S. state and in many countries, most notably Australia and Canada. Mbcoats (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two excellent sources in the NY Times and Bloomberg. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that it warrants deletion, whether that be as a redundant fork or listcruft Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have been the subject of pranks on Punk'd

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of List of Punk'd episodes, where all pranked celebrities are also listed. Being pranked is not a defining feature of these people, so this fails WP:NOTDIR (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as [...] persons (real or fictional)). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The information here is redundant to the much better, more detailed List of Punk'd episodes. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant information. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 17:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information is already at List_of_Punk'd_episodes#Season_8:_2007 Dream Focus 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:REDUNDANT Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure listcruft. Kaweendra (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant listcruft Dartslilly (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, although a redirect per WP:CHEAP would be okay by me. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 7 January 2020 (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) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Love Boat guest stars

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

This deserves more discussion than a prod. These lists of (mostly) one-time guest stars in guest-star-heavy TV shows fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. The guest stars are listed in their respective shows' episode lists. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M) (2nd nomination), which is heading towards snow delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. The Love Boat list has only one reference cited, which doesn't even mention The Love Boat. The Fantasy Island list has zero references. These lists are actually less useful with respect to their own series than is List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M), which is itself on the way to deletion.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They're just lists of trivia without giving any context. It seems like they'd be listed in the episode summaries anyway. TTN (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2020 (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 X-Treme X-Men. The one sentence or so can be merged from history. Sandstein 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lotus (comics)

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

PRODded, redirected, then reverted. Fictional character article that does not establish the notability of the character itself independent of the subject - no notability outside of the X-Men comics. Would endorse a redirect as well, though I personally find that a little implausible as a search term when there is a parenthetical disambiguation in the article's title. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to X-Treme X-Men. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X-Treme X-Men. There's maybe a sentence's worth of content cited to a reliable source that can be merged. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Amour

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

Band fails general notability guidelines. The citations included are not significant coverage from reliable sources. I did a Google search and couldn't find any exceptions per WP:NBAND. Citrivescence (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They meet criteria 10 (won a music competition) as per WP:NBAND in a festival that is itself notable enough for us to have an article, and the guideline only requires one criteria. See footnote 3 in the article itself. The contest does not appear to have problems with WP:LOCAL either, so I'm game for keeping this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @Citrivescence: Upvoting the comment of User:Dennisthe2. Same rationale. Read footnote 3.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dennis The Tiger. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A battle of the bands to get on a festival lineup is not a major music competition. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Duffbeerforme: But Wanderband is a "major" music competition just like Redhorse Beer Muziklaban is. You totally missed the point why they organized the battle of the band in the first place. It's not like a barangay hosted a battle of the band program and invited local talents for a fiesta. I do think Wanderband is a "major" music competition sans the alcoholic beverage sponsor. Plus the Wanderland organizers themselves are responsible for the battle of the bands to get new talents.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As major as Redhorse Beer Muziklaban? Where's the coverage of Wanderband that convinces you of that. Battle of the band contests to appear on the bill of notable festivals are a dime a dozen. They do not inherit notability from the festival. What makes this one special? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per WP:NBAND. won a music competition Wm335td (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same thoughts w/ Dennisthe2 — Emperork (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see coverage of the band in The Manila Standard and The Phillipine Star. I don't know much about news media in the Phillipines but they look like responsible news sources to me. A Google News search reveals a lot of people talking about Lola Amour as an up and coming band. Toughpigs (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable band with significant coverage. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennis Dartslilly (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on playing large venues around the Philippines and winning a reality TV show. (I'm actually not impressed with the sourcing.) Bearian (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (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. A redirect can happen outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regard (DJ)

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

Nothing in the article indicates why the DJ is notable to have his own page. Anything here is already covered on the song he remixed with more details. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 03:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does meet the "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" criteria of WP:NMUSIC, specifically for "Ride It" which was number 2 on the official UK charts. It does appear that Regard might be a "one-hit wonder" as this appears to be the only significant things he's done. But he is covered in multiple reliable sources, so does meet WP:GNG as well, for example coverage in BBC, Rolling Stone, Celeb Mix. The article is poorly written, but the subject is, I think, notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article was already nominated for deletion and the deletion was declined. We are over it. The page clearly shows that the artist is notable, Regard’s song “Ride It” was a Top 5 hit in Australia. The artist is clearly notable. The only thing that needs to be fixed is the table I made, it is done wrong because I’m using an iPad and cannot do the right “. Also, we could live with that anyway, and I’m sure someone will fix it. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is the WP:NOTAGAIN fallacy. Narky Blert (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at a push redirect to song. Subject has one cover song that does not even have an article of its own. Too soon for article of non notable artist imo. Rob van vee 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Delete, because the subject does not meet GNG in my view. Very limited coverage, for what is essentially a niche SINGLE EVENT. A couple of the better more indepth references available are actually interviews and hence primary. Weak, because they do meet subject NMUSIC by charting (reasonably well, but only for a short period) in a couple of countries, but which for my view has a far too low bar. Brief, one, but not chart topping, hit wonders should not have a presumption of N, especially if they have nothing else of any notability at all. Aoziwe (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Redirect. The remix by the subject is definitely notable, and a likely search term. There is no indication I can find that the subject himself is notable in his own right, and notability is not inherited. So redirect from Regard (DJ) to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version. Aoziwe (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, Regard did reach Number One in the official singles chart in Ireland: [2] which seems pretty notable to me, especially combined with Top 5 charting in at least two other countries. I tend to agree that the NMUSIC criteria is a low bar, but it is the agreed bar, nevertheless. Until it is changed, we should judge AfDs on the basis of the consensus view expressed in the notability guidelines. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. But the only way such gets challenged is by having discussions at AfD or arising at AfD and going over the guideline. So that argument is a rather circular block I think. But that is another discussion for another day. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A random AfD is about the worst place to try to get a notability guideline changed. If you want to challenge one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria, then start a discussion on the talk page and get consensus there. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC explicity says "may be notable if", it is not an immediate pass for notability and it still subjected to WP:PEOPLE. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, there is notability. I have mentioned and sourced that “Ride It” peaked at number 3 on the ARIA. Stop saying that this page shows no notability. Also, if you say that the only notability is that it charted, that is good enough. If you have a high-charting song, It should get you a Wikipedia page. So stop saying that. It’s inaccurate. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERITED, that is both Regard and "Ride" It must be independent of each other, like in the sources The Mirror Cracked gave (still, they are primary sources: BBC and Celebmix are interviews and Rolling Stone is not about Regard, but how his remix re-popularized the song). Both sources in the article come from ARIA and are merely discussing the performance of "Ride It" in Australian charts not Regard as a person. Outside that the article merely says "Regard is an artist who released a cover of the Jay Sean song Ride It", which itself is a WP:BLP1E, it doesn't satisfy any WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO criteria. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please !vote only once. Narky Blert (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what guys? If you don’t like what it shows, I suggest you edit the page with reliable sources. Instead of deleting my articles, fix them. It’s a better idea. And you can’t call me lazy for that. I just can’t do it. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can do it because the sources don't exist. Redirect for me. Doctorhawkes

Please !vote only once. Narky Blert (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version. It is unusual for a version of a song to pass WP:SONG but the performer to be non-notable; but it can happen, and this is such a case. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. There is no evidence at all that Regard gets anywhere near passing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version. This remix is the only thing currently worth including in his article. The song's page already has a completed version of what the artist's page is trying to be. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the page, using the already noted BBC article (which is not an interview) and the Rolling Stone article and new articles by the Radio Times, Music Week and Billboard. There are at now seven published, independent sources on the article, which I believe is enough to pass WP:GNG. I've also noted that Regard's work received significant airplay and charted in a number of countries including at number 1 in Ireland and number 2 in the UK, so it meets WP:NMUSIC. I invite contributors here to re-asses the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for improving it. My opinion on redirecting is based on the fact that there is already an article on the song, and so far there's no evidence of his notability being independent from that song in any way. The BBC appearance you added could very well be the start of some external notability, but WP:CRYSTALBALL also applies, and I suspect that he might just be popping onstage with Jay Sean for Ride It. If the discussion is relisted, I suppose we'll find out and adjust accordingly. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is a better artilce, but 2/3 is about the song, not the artist, and another 1/6 is about the artist only because of the song. So, I still think a redirect and merge of any relavent song details to Ride It (Jay Sean song)#Regard version is the better way to go. Aoziwe (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES fallacy. Please identify which of those sources make Regard independently notable. Narky Blert (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. I already gave you three examples of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Here they are again: BBC, Rolling Stone, Celeb Mix. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets the criteria "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" of WP:NMUSIC, specifically for "Ride It" which was number 2 on the official UK charts. Honestly, cannot believe that this was even nominated for deletion. Technohead1980 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The remix of the song is notable, the remixer is not. Case of WP:TOOSOON, with a redirect it will be easy to deal with should the person become notable. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the three sources mentioned above: (1) BBC: incidental coverage of the remixer, focus is the song (2) Rolling Stone: no discussion whatsover of the remixer, entire focus is the original artist, the song and the app (3) Celeb Mix: this actually is a piece about the remixer, although is completely puff-PR and not a quality source (which the first two would be considered).--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lake

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

I have no indication that this person is notable. The references confirm existence, but there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carol Lake won the Guardian Fiction Prize for 1989. The prize was awarded to entries from British and Commonwealth citizens over 2 billion people. There were hundreds of entries each year and a final list of 5 writers were selected. Carol Lake won that selection process and the award that went it. There are over 30 winner of the award from 1964, all of whom have entries on the fiction list on wikipedea and Carol Lake was the only person in red writing. I have linked her name to the entry so that now there is no gap in Wikipedea own information. If the article is deleted the gap will appear again.

The Guardian Fiction Prize was a very prestigious award and has now been replaced with the Guardian First Book award. It is a notable achievement to have won the award.

Carol Lake second book was used as the base for a BBC drama called The Hello Girls which had 2 series and was in the top 30 viewing figures for August that year. https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-30/ as you can see. Carol Lake is a non computer user and still types her stories with an old typewriter. She does not participate in social media and that is probably why it is difficult to find much information about her. She has written 5 books and the latest one 'Winter at the Bookshop' has just been released by Five Leaves Publications. I am sure it will have success.

I hope you reconsider the deletion of the entry and allow people to be able to know or amend her story.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romologiannone (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR#3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Her book Switchboard Operators was the basis of the TV series The Hello Girls. Her books have been reviewed in the London Review of Books, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement, The Daily Telegraph, among others. The article could certainly use improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NAUTHOR#3 Wm335td (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lake's new book has now been published under her real name Sylvia Riley. There is a book launch at Five Leaves publications in Nottingham on the 9th January. Keep this entry https://facebook.com/events/537317537125237/?ti=as

Keep per comment by RebeccaGreen.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes you are right the entry does need improvement. It is my first attempt and I will add and improve it if it is not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romologiannone (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Carol Lake's new book has now been published. There is a book launch at Five Leaves publications on the 9th January. https://facebook.com/events/537317537125237/?ti=as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romologiannone (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. After the lengthy discussion, it is decided to work on the article at draft:Buru (legendary creature). The nomination has been withdrawn by nominator in favour of move to draft-space, and move performed by User:EricR. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buru (legendary creature)

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

Not discussed in reliable scientific sources. The article is unsourced, and any attention it gets is mostly from fringe sources. There's not enough reliable coverage about this subject to create an article without giving extremely undue weight to fringe material. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a classic example of cryptozoologists taking a local legend seriously and promoting it as a real creature. Unfortunately neither the legend (if it existed at all) nor the purported species have received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm willing to give folks a chance to rewrite this, based on recently suggested sources. –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. Can see significant coverage in reliable sources such as journal by IOSR and IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia.[3] Then there is a whole book dedicated to this subject called "The Hunt for the Buru: The True Story of the Search for a Prehistoric Reptile in North India"[4] by Ralph Izzard. Significant coverage is also found in other sources like [5]. UNESCO also made a mention[6]. These are all reliable sources. MehrajMir (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IOSR-JHSS ~~appears to be a reliable journal that devotes a few sentences to the legend.~~ See Arjayay's analysis below.

Izzard appears to be a primary source about an unsuccessful 1948 expedition in search of Buru. These expedition reports, especially historical ones, usually requiry secondary analysis. Unclear to what extent or how reliably it covers the legend. Mehrajmir13, have you read it?

Monster Dot-To-Dot is a children's coloring book.

UNESCO appears reliable and has a few sentences on the Buru legend.

We have two solid sources, however they don't have anywhere near enough content to meet WP:SIGCOV or write an article. I'm not convinced that a trip report from 1948 is going to have anything useful beyond a few quotes. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IOSR Journals is a predatory publisher, not a reliable source. As for the claim that "IOSR has been used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia" this totally untrue - the current uses of IOSR on Wikipedia can be seen here [0,4,100} - 55 spam reports and this AFD discussion - not one article whatsoever. - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Arjayay. FWIW Mehrajmir13's list shows 40 or so uses that slipped under the radar because they don't have a URL, however this does not speak to its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article had some sources but in the previous versions.[7] Subject meets WP:GNG. Tessaracter (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources present in the previous version were removed because they're written by fringe authors:

Bernard Heuvelmans is a prominent figure in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology.

Karl Shuker is another cryptozoologist.

The Cryptid Zoo (in External Links) is a run-of-the-mill online "cryptid compendium" with no indication of fact-checking, accuracy or expertise. Besides citing fringe writers Coleman and Shuker, it also cites Wikipedia, making it completely unuseable. –dlthewave ☎ 14:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: per analysis above, sources are in passing and / or fringe.~~ --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can I just point out what a nonsense it is to argue that a legendary creature is not notable because it isn't covered by scientific sources. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its just stoopid. There are sources, UN sorces, and this article isnt advert or promotional, and doesnt spread any rumours or misunderstandings. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and WP:IAR? This is a legend from history so the sources are obviously going to be scarce. But we are an encyclopaedia, we must not create articles about such subjects. Lets create articles on pets of celebrities, or which celebrity pissed on who. Afterall thats the spirit of wikipedia the encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. It is nonsensical to expect scientists to write about this Cryptozoology-related subject. Nonetheless, what about this from high quality publisher Psychology Press by Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf? This source meets WP:SIGCOV as well. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article could pass WP:GNG as either a creature or as a legend. When scientific sources are referenced, that is about determining whether or not Buru can pass as a creature, which it does not appear to. As a legend, the sources are about three paragraphs in your book, which is a solid source, and a short reference by UNESCO. I'm not convinced that those two by themselves are enough to pass GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Izzard, Ralph (1951). The hunt for the Buru. this one is looking legendary. oops, already mentioned above, but i came across it in the bibliography for a work on the Apatani language.—eric 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Blackburn, S. H. (2008). Himalayan tribal tales: Oral tradition and culture in the Apatani Valley. Brill. confirms myth and mentions Izzard.—eric 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliably sourced foundation myth. The content may be more appropriate in other articles with this a ~~redirect~~DAB.—eric 15:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- confluence of two notable topics, the myth, and Izzard's expedition which was sponsored by both the Daily Mail and Mountbatten. Hog Farm,Dlthewave,Roxy the dog,K.e.coffman,Arjayay

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concern that some of the RS being advocated for Keep is not really independent, and the article itself remains unsourced; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Edit. The article doesn't violate any major WP guidelines, but it is pretty much a stub. If it stays, it needs to have more information and have sources. If it's not edited within a specified time frame, then come back to this page and delete it. Dictator Black (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sourcing does actually violate our Verifiability policy. Could you suggest any sources that might be used to add more information? It's already been at AfD for a week which is the standard time period we allow for article improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have yet to see a single reliable source discussing this topic, just the usual fringe proponent circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Keep, Eric in particular has dug up reliable sources to replace the fringe—looks like the article might be saved after all! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuart Blackburn SOAS University of London. Several published works on oral history of the Apatani. Not a reliable source? Fringe proponent? Care to reconsider?—eric 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @EricR: Have you linked one of the articles Blackburn wrote about the Buru? I went to the Blackburn link above, went to the article on the Blackburn page, and went through the article and could only find one mention of "buru" and that mention was in somebody' name. So can you please link to the articles by Blackburn so they can be analyzed? Hog Farm (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found the book linked by EricR earlier and found references to the creature under the name "bura" on two pages on the book. I can't tell if the mentions, in the description of a local myth, are enough to meet SIG-COV or not, though, especially since the UNESCO source literally mentions "buru" in about 2-3 sentences. Hog Farm (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jesus fucking christ.
      - Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1962). The Apa Tanis and their neighbours. pp. 12–13, 62–3.
      - Fürer-Haimendorf, C. (1980). A Himalayan Tribe: From Cattle to Cash. pp. 12–13.
      - Beggiora, S (2018). "The Mystery of the buru: From Indigenous Ontology to Post-modern Fairy Tale". International Quarterly for Asian Studies.
      - Blackburn, S (2012). "Apatani Ideas and Idioms of Origins". Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas.
      - Farooqy, P (2017). "Symbiosis Between Nature & Culture–A Case Study of the Apatani Cultural Landscape, India". Journal of World Heritage.
    - —eric 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eric, as you appear to have access to these items, please provide some passages with which to expand and de-fringe this article. I'd be happy to change my vote if we have material to work with here, and it sounds like we may indeed. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1962) you can borrow, (Beggiora, 2018), (Hubert and Blackburn, 2012) at acedimia.edu, (Farooqy, 207) is just a passing mention but calls it well-known. (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1980) all i can get is the snippet view.—eric 04:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone can draw enough to build a new article from these sources, then I will change my vote. If not, then there doesn't appear to be enough out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would creating a new section at Apatani people about their folklore and including the information there be acceptable? Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the sources here I feel that there may be an arguable case for keeping a very short paragraph about this cryptid but on balance, the outcome I would prefer is a very selective merge to list of cryptids where it's already mentioned. We would need to edit Buru (disambiguation) accordingly. —S Marshall T/C 15:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "cryptid", it a well known and documented legend of the Apatani. Did you read Beggiora? Here is a quick introduction to myth within anthropology. I guess gaming magazines and Rich at IGN are more Wikipedia's speed.—eric 16:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @EricR:I'm still not convinced this warrants a separate article. But after the sources that have come up, I would support a merge to Apatani people if a new section about Apatani folklore is formed. Would that be acceptable to you? Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hog Farm: I would hesitate to merge to Apatani people. It is a very short article, includes very little about their history and nothing about other myths. It doesn't seem like there are many editors interested in the topic to clean up the text. Adding a whole bunch about a legend with Stonor and Izzard wandering around looking for a dinosaur seems pretty WP:UNDUE. A better merge target would be Ralph Izzard, where looking for Yeti and swamp monsters is appropriate content. We should neutrally describe both the real myth and the nutty expedition which tried to make it a real creature. I lean towards cleaning up the existing article, or WP:TNT. Merge to Ralph Izzard would be workable, but merging to Apatani i think would create a bigger mess than there is now.—eric 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand "cryptid" to mean an animal that hasn't been shown to exist. If that's wrong then the mention in List of cryptids will need amending.—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. whether this is a cryptid - The problem is, these things can exist for centuries as local legends, with (as long as sufficient evidence of significance exists) no problem for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a myth/folklore topic. But then cryptozoologists get interested in them, and suddenly they become (in some people's eyes) 'cryptids', and people try to get them deleted because they hate cryptozoology as a pseudoscience (i.e. not a proper science) and argue that they should be deleted because they are not proven to exist by science (i.e. proper science), which is both obvious (otherwise pseudoscience wouldn't be interested in them) and ridiculous at the same time. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a merge will not work as the list has long only been about notable cryptids, thus is merged it will just be removed as not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. We write about cryptozoologist interest when there's notable coverage in reliable secondary sources. We do not, however, use fringe sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavy re-working is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework as a legendary creature. Scientific sources are not needed for myths.--Auric talk 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has worked on thousands of myth-related articles on Wikipedia over the past few decades, I have along the way encountered everyone from Young Earth creationists to Neo-Nazis intending to use fringe sources promote their views in these spaces. In short, I can say that your take on our myth coverage is categorically false. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so?--Auric talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources must meet WP:RS, and folklore topics (including myth) are no exception. This means academics with relevant backgrounds, such as folklorists and philologists, rather than Young Earth creationist Tim's evangelical cryptozoology emporium on the internet, self-proclaimed monster-hunter Max's Facebook page (gotta catch 'em all), or "Adolf Messerschmidt"'s self-published books on how (your ethnic group of choice) in fact consists of "reptilians" controlling world politics. Since the project lacked folklorists from an early date, fringe sources have been a problem for a long time in these Wikipedia circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the currently used source is acceptable and Eric convinced me that other good sources exist. That said, the article needs work and some sources are difficult to access, unfortunately. —Paleo Neonate – 05:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin There's a discussion about moving this and similar articles to draft space to work on them. I don't think anyone would object.—eric 22:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to withdraw this if the article is moved to the draft space temporarily for improvement. Hog Farm (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- done, and db-r2 on the redirect.—eric 03:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nomination withdrawn Per the guide to non-admin closures, I can't close the AfD, because there is still one standing !vote to delete. User:Roxy the dog, as the only remaining !vote to delete, would you find a move to the draft space acceptable? Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Joynul

Not a notable person, this article is already deleted once but recreated by the author. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As, I am the creater I have to say something. When it was deleted it had around 5 references. I was not online then. It was deleted by User:RHaworth (He deleted pages like Maya Rani Paul, Jogesh Chandra Barman and Narayan Rao Tarale which were created by mine. I think he has a bad habits in deleting stub articles. This time I did not knock him as he replied late that my experience say so I recreate it). I can provide you only one English source (Comedy stars through the ages). If you think, an article having lack of non English sources should be deleted, you can delete it and vote for delete. And if you think a country's legendary comedian's article should be kept on Wikipedia, you can keep it and vote for keep. Thanks. -- S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Equally, Nazmus, you have bad habits in creating short stub articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Courtesy ping to RHaworth as his alleged bad habits have been brought up at this AfD but I'm not sure he's been made aware of it and it might be behind his back. The AfD nom. has previously raised invalid CSD [8] which creator had removed and seemingly an edit war ensued. Nom didn't inform creator of AfD but creator has found it anyway. Nom has also failed to sign this AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Neutral (withdrawing this !vote and leaving to consensus ... probably ) Speedy keep: (Technical) per WP:SKCRIT ~~a:2~~ 2:a Frivolous or vexatious nom. after edit war dispute following a WP:CSD raised with no valid criteria.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (This !vote from oldid=931005937 is restored after being nuked by RHaworth for now reasons .. probably accidently on edit edit conflict ... I have said what I have said on a log be it right or wrong or stupid or whatever and it should not probably be deleted unless there is a very good reason even if restoring it gets me in my usual trouble or blocked. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: It is comes down to WP:RS and there's a reliance on foreign language sources I would suggest as a minimum the author or other interested parties elaborate the article cites ensuring trans-title,last,first,date,website,lang (or equivalents) are all populated where possible and three best are presented per WP:THREE suggestion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)(This comment from oldid=931005937 is restored after being nuked by RHaworth for now reasons .. probably accidently on edit edit conflict ... I have said what I have said on a log be it right or wrong or stupid or whatever and it should not probably be deleted unless there is a very good reason even if restoring it gets me in my usual trouble or blocked. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Okay ... I've done the trans-title's on this occasion. Have a feeling some of the sources are passing mention only but The kings of laughter in the movie likely saved his his eyebrows which should be in the article. As it is I pretty well might as well be looking at IMDB as this wikipedia article. In the end imdb alone probably indicates passes WP:NACTOR as he seemshigh up the credits ... but I'm not expert at this. I think I'll stay off !voting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim of "legendary" is probably true. Let us hope that someone will go to the trouble of finding paper sources, ie. newspaper articles, etc. from the guy's heyday. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per User:RHaworth-Nahal^(T) 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just reverted a strange corruption of the above vote comment by the nom., whilst probably a typo mistake rather than malicious people make wish to view history for details. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not only has this article been deleted and recreated, but the creator of the article, User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib consistently and purposely removes CSD tags that have been placed on articles that he/she has created. Unfortunately, the user seems to have no regard for rules or regulations when it comes to article deletion or creation. Furthermore, this article itself was nominated CSD and the user removed that tag as well. Dr42 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Khan does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N and certainly does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Joynul fails to meet the requirement as he "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." (Emphasis added). Dr42 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dr42 those who acted in multiple notable films in significant role they are notable and passed WP:NACTOR. And even he is considered as legend. I think you will review your vote.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please point me to your sources and I will reconsider. I attempted to identify sources for ten minutes to no avail. I judged the article on its merits. Indeed, we shouldn't even have had this discussion because had you not originally deleted the CSD tag for an article that you created yourself, it may have already been resolved. However, show me your proof and if it meets the guidelines I will reconsider. But as of right now, I do not agree with you and my vote remains delete. Dr42 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dr42 yes, I recreated the article after CSD deletion. I have mentioned above why I recrearted. An article deleted in CSD didn't mean that there is 0% chance of his notability. And here deleting adminstrator himself vote for keep.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest relisting. There's no good RS in English (The Comedy Stars Through The Ages is too brief a treatment of the subject to be much use in proving notability) but given the fact that he died pre-internet and that his films were not in English this is not surprising. In looking at IMDB it does appear that he had leading roles in multiple films so WP:NACTOR may be met here if sources can be located. My guess is that any reliable online sources to be found on this individual will be in the Bengali-language. I am going to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh to see if anyone there may be able to assist in locating RS in Bengali. If that yields nothing, then we can delete in confidence knowing that we at least attempted to do a proper WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No RS that would confirm GNG have yet been provided at this AfD, however, there is a recognition that good en-RS could be hard to find, and thus a re-list is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 31 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. Consensus that notability criteria (whether NSPORTS, NCRICKET, or GNG) are not met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas ali

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

Fifteen-year-old cricketer, has played in U-13 cricket for Peshawar, but no other claim of notability, fails WP:NCRICKET. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cricketer, no evidence of passing GNG. Claims to have played List A and ODI are unsupported by refs provided. Spike 'em (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be a Speedy Deletion - looks autobiographical by a child and the claims of playing at List A etc... level are clearly a hoax. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only known for being young. Basically WP:BLP1E. Editorkamran (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdraw. A very poor Afd on my part. Seems to be notable on a number of criteria. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liyi Dai

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

Non notable Raytheon engineer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not an academic not a professor. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject may not work at a university, but is clearly engaged in academic research as evidenced by the citation record found by the Google Scholar search helpfully linked above, so WP:PROF, which says "academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements", applies. It is explicitly stated in WP:PROF#C3 that IEEE fellowship confers notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five papers over 100 citations. You could be right.scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. While the article is extremely short (especially for a BLP), it is clear that this person meets WP:PROF#C3 because they are an IEEE Fellow and WP:PROF#C1 because of the strong citation record (Not sure this person is the author of the book that pops up as first result on GS, but if she is, that alone ->3000 citations- would be enough to meet C1). --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination He seems to be notable. I think I need to reread the NPROF criteria. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunji Gah

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

This is an unremarkable mountain stream that joins the Indus river near the town of Bunji. There is no need for a separate article on the topic. Sources are practically nonexistent. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a small stream on GMaps, does not pass NGEO, could redirect to the town. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 31 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) 15:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Peter Steltz

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not scale WP:GNG All I see is his participation in a war but I don’t see him as an individual being discussed extensively in WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual claim to notability. Serving in a war does not default make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question According to the View History for this page, it was literally just created on 10 December 2019. I agree with the comments above that this particualr soldier does not meet WP:SOLDIER however is there not an actual human experienced wikipedia editor who would have approved this page to begin with? If a page can just be auto submitted without any human review then it would seem that it makes more work for those seeking to keep pages in line with Wikipedia notability standards. Boston1775 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of the page is primarily responsible for ensuring it meets WP:GNG, unless they have asked for a review and so a page can be created which doesn't meet WP:GNG and is then listed at AFD. Mztourist (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. All delete !votes withdrawn, including nominator (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eitan Azaria

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

~~Single sentence, plus infobox, entirely based on statistical data so it fails GNG.~~ No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even have an article in Hebrew Wikipedia. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY by leaps and bounds - if someone could do a search in Hebrew I'm sure we can get this past WP:GNG. I added two English-language sources to help flesh out the article (though one is a bit more promotional than would be my preference, but it's true.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer, substantial career meeting NFOOTBALL, I refuse to believe there are no Hebrew sources out there to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. After the work done by SportingFlyer, I agree that the article should be kept so I've struck out my original statement. Could someone please close the discussion? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a delete !vote, so this'll have to run its course unless @SharabSalam: agrees to withdraw their !vote as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. Sorry, @SharabSalam: happy to leave it with you. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep after the nomination withdrawn. I agree with SportingFlyer.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2020 (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 Nazgûl. There is a rough consensus that it should be redirected due to insufficient suitable sources (and related content) that is non-in universe. A couple of !votes were discounted due to no reason being provided. If there is a suitable piece of sourced content then it can be duplicated into the Nazgul article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witch-king of Angmar

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

Seems to be all in-universe plot, except for one sentence: "In the manuscript of his notes for translators, Tolkien stated that the Witch-king's name and background were not recorded ..." I suppose a redirect to Nazgûl would be (very) marginally acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a delete is applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl. Mentioned multiple times in that article, a redirect seems very much entirely acceptable.----Pontificalibus 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl, as the Witch-King is a Nazgûl in-universe. Hog Farm (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nazgûl While the Witch-king is not independently notable, he is the most prominent of the Nazgûl. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now we are getting somewhere. Although considering how many articles we have on truly minor figures in The Silmarillion this may be premature. However this character is not notable enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazgûl. This article perpetuates the misunderstanding that the character is called the "Witch-king of Angmar"; that was only one of his guises. He is not called that in Lord of the Rings, the main work in which he appears, except in the Appendices. As noted above, his name has been forgotten. He essentially has no identity. His notable appearances in LOTR are that he stabs Frodo, confronts Gandalf, and is killed by Eowyn. He is not much of a character in his own right.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- His name was not forgotten. Tolkien never gave him one. There is a big difference between these. We should not engage in in fictional universe rhetoric in deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm merely saying that he is a non-entity in the book.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl. The article fails GNG, as all sources are primary. Since it is all in-universe information and a list of appearances in media, there is nothing to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazgûl per points made above sources are primary and too many in universe details Dartslilly (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finkenberg's Sons Furniture

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

Non notable organization without WP:CORPDEPTH that fails WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable chain of furniture stores in one of the most notable cities in the world. New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Wm335td (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An organisation this old will have coverage in printed sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regional retail chain with significant coverage over many years.NotButtigieg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There are enough reliable sources, including NYT and WSJ, as well as several book sources that can be added, like this. epicgenius (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rathfelder and Epicgenius a company this old usually has the coverage required by the GNG Dartslilly (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Prakash Dwivedi

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of GNG and also I don’t see him satisfying WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable novelist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will not satisfy academic notability (or other notability guidelines) unless there are some non-English sources that can be used to satisfy these criteria (and the article is completely rewritten). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Dartslilly (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2020 (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) 05:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Théodred

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

Non-notable fictional character, has no substantial reliable coverage in secondary sources that I can find. Only referenced in-universe as a figure slain in a battle barely peripheral to the plot of LOTR, and has no real world notability. Not to be confused with Theodred, bishop of London. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article says, "Little else is known about Théodred". So there's no point in having an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't even rate a mention in the LOTR synopsis. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Théodred is one of the least important characters in The Lord of the Rings. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the book he is a dead character in the past. This is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theoden at least, possible search term. But yes, only known for dying and leading to cousin Eomer being next in succession. ValarianB (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack Upland Dartslilly (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Moheb

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

Non notable singer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the source says he is a "very will-known" Yemeni singer. I would add that he is known in the Arab world and most sources are in Arabic.[9][10]. There are a lot of Arabic sources. BTW, he created his YouTube channel recently. He used to make songs in cassette tapes and sing in weddings. When he sings in weddings, people record him and upload the videos to YouTube.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several well-known Arab artists with wikipedia articles will also fail WP:SINGER. However, the article may need to be improved further like adding Template:Infobox musical artist. UA3 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2020 (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) 05:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aj200

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him hence fails WP:GNG and also is a singer but fails WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was already notable before he started singing, I think the reason he has reliable and independent sources talking about his music in depth is because he is already notable.(Creativecreatr (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians. What is he notable at all for even marginally besides singing?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this musician is not notable at this point.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Yasutomi

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

Non notable individual that fails WP:GNG she appears to have been a politician at some point but fails WP:NPOL her only claim to notability is the fact that she is transgender. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The jawiki article should be checked for sources to prove this subject is notable here. ミラ P 04:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively significant coverage: [11] [12] [13]. Whether she is notable primarily for being a rarity in Japanese education/politics is debatable, but I suppose this probably passes WP:GNG. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notability question, then Keep as pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. The ja.wp article shows a long list of publications, and about 45 seconds of Googling in Japanese for sources before 2017 (so, prior to political activities) found several reviews of her books in national newspapers as well as related interviews (e.g. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc.). I have no doubt that more targeted searching for specific titles would find more, given how easy those were to find. So, in my opinion, the subject is notable under WP:AUTHOR#3, particularly the bit about creating or co-creating significant work that is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and all of the other coverage is bonus material that will make expanding the article easier. As for "her only claim to notability is the fact that she is transgender", well, no, given that her work was getting reviewed in national newspapers before she went public with her gender identity. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that she got a notablity before social transitioning. --Sharouser (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article itself needs to be expanded and needs someone to look over the Japanese sources, there seems to be decent English coverage ([19], [20]), a documentary has been made about her ([21]) and judging from the research listed on the university page ([22]) and teh list given above by User:Indignant Flamingo she also has a good shot at WP:NPROF, though again, would need a Japanese speaker to confirm this. Achaea (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable (as per comments above) - I've added more about their politics for the time being. (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, per GNG, as evidenced by the many sources documented. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neerja A Gupta

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

No indication of notability. All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable individual.Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single reliable secondary source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROF. Very early in her career, she has exactly one citation on Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Augustus

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is an Australian Alexander Augustus Pentland who is very notable. The Alexander Augustus is not, due to very slim coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, as is the "movement" he is associated with The Bite Back Movement which is also up for deletion. Maybe in a few years, but at this time does not pass WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artist is not yet notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - some coverage in Time Out, but that might not be significant enough. It could be a redirect target. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (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) 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Bramhachari

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

Unsourced film. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable film.Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE Atlantic306 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm assuming Atlantic made his pithy above on the state of the reasoning used to date, rather than as a Keep argument (if so, please let me know asap). I wasn't able to find anything like enough sourcing on the film itself to pass NFILM. Most are mentions about cast appearing in it or saying it suffered a distinct box office failure Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2020 (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) 05:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priya O Priya

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

Unsourced film. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable film.Celestina007 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (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. Meets at least one explicit criterion of WP:PROF, as documented with a reliable source. RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sykes (engineer)

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

GNG fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. I can't believe my eyes. A Fellow of an IEEE is being nominated for deletion? Seriously?--Biografer (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Fellow is the highest level of membership in the IEEE, and WP:NACADEMIC even uses it as an example of what can satisfy criterion #3. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5,586 fellows of the IEEE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and they all meet WP:NACADEMIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; mess up by the nominator. PROF does after all use it as an example of what meets #3. I do understand it though as it is very hard to keep track of all PROF criteria. Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 22:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year! // J 947 ^{^{^(c)}} 22:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear pass of WP:Prof. Did the nominator do WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep Quintessential pass of WP:PROF#C3. The GNG is irrelevant in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (may as well pile on:)), as an IEEE Fellow meets WP:NACADEMIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Fellows of major professional organizations (doctors, physicists, engineers) have been kept. If this were a nurse or lawyer, it would be marginal, but this is fairly clear. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is my cheap WP:PILEON !vote. passes WP:NACADEMIC Wm335td (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Shchepinov

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

Quite simply puts, fails WP:GNG despite passing WP:NFOOTY as he played in a WP:FPL league back in 1998 for FC Tyumen where he only played for 55 minutes. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have had a lengthy lower league career, meaning it's more likely sources are out there - any idea @Jogurney and Geregen2:? Giant Snowman 10:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less than an hour fully-professional league play makes no one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet football related notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who played roughly 60 minutes in the Russian Premier League. I cannot find anything online in Russian- or English-language sources other than match reports, database entries, and routine transfer announcements. Accordingly, the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL doesn't hold due to the comprehensive GNG failure. Jogurney (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (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.