Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 15

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 14 January 16 January >

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. Delete per failure to meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Fox (actress)

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

She is part of a notable family and has a notable husband. However I'm unable to find significant coverage of her or her work. Therefore I think she does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG as she does not seem to have had significant roles in multiple notable films/ shows/ stage. Cowlibob (talk) 18:17, 17 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 delete. Per WP:CSD#A7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amputated (band)

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

A British brutal death metal band. I tried to find references that indicate any notability towards the article, but I only found databases, blogs and articles that contain the word "amputated" but have no relation to the band at all. They have three studio albums and some other releases but I did not found any review on a site that establishes notability, only some blogs. Therefore, I think they are not notable to Wikipedia. Like I said in my previous nominations, brutal death metal, goregrind and the likes are considered to be underground styles. So these bands will usually appear on non-reliable sources that can be edited by anyone like Metal Archives, Discogs, Spirit of Metal etc. The things they list are the following: the members, the albums and the year they were founded, with some trivial information thrown in (but not in all sites). These sites just provide trivial coverage that is not notable for Wikipedia. There are some bands that make exceptions because even though they are underground, they make a sufficient impact and considered to be pioneers of their genre, or for other reasons. But Amputated is one of those brutal death metal bands that are not notable for Wikipedia. Prove me wrong, but I think they are not notable.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:47, 15 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 16:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Duck

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

Unsourced since creation 13 years ago, not even an external link. A search for reliable sources didn't yield anything useful. Fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:16, 15 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 merge to Thomas Walter Scott. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Walter Scott

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

Unnecessary content fork from Thomas Walter Scott. Standalone "electoral history of [Person]" articles are not routinely created for all politicians as a separate topic from their existing biography -- it's permitted in a few isolated cases for top-level figures (like national heads of state) whose articles are extremely long and need to be chunked out for size management purposes, but the vast majority of politicians just have their electoral history data placed in the biographical article rather than being spun out to a separate page. (Note that other than this, Category:Electoral history of Canadian politicians exclusively contains Prime Ministers of Canada, with no similar article for any other non-PM in all of Canadian history.) But Scott's existing biographical article is not long enough to need the special treatment — and even here, a significant portion of the content is essentially just a repetition of the biographical article rather than new content, so even a fully merged article would still not actually be "all of that plus all of this" in length. There's simply no need for a separate article here: his electoral results should simply be included in the existing article and do not need to be their own separate page. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Delete per failure to meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Pickvance

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

Only reference is to his own website Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 15 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 withdrawn as a responder actually converted the title into a proper article, thus resolving the issue. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Farabee

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

"Article" which is not an article, but merely a misplaced template being misused to do something that isn't what it's for. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verlag Jugend & Volk, the "Wikidata redirect" template is not for creating soft redirects to Wikidata from titles that don't have articles on the English Wikipedia -- it is for cross-referencing Wikidata entries with titles that exist on Wikipedia as internal redirects to other Wikipedia articles. The standard example of how it's meant to be used is actress, which exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to actor rather than a standalone article about actresses as a separate topic -- but that redirect's target is another Wikipedia article, not a Wikidata page, and the template is used on the redirect to keep it linked with the Wikidata properties, not to render Wikidata as the destination. Redirecting readers crosswiki to Wikidata as a substitute for an actual Wikipedia article is not what this template is for. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this page were using actual words to describe him as a politician, I'd never have listed it for deletion. If you want to rewrite it to be a real article about him, be my guest and I'll withdraw this — but the fact that the person named in the page title would theoretically pass a notability guideline is not a reason why it should be kept in this form in lieu of a real article that properly stated and contexualized his notability in prose. Our job is to keep articles, the kind that use words, and diverting people to Wikidata in lieu of text is always 100 per cent inappropriate. It's not that he can never have an article on here — it's that there's no legitimate reason for him to have this in lieu of a proper article. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider it speediable at first, because this was a novel situation — but shortly after I initiated this discussion, another administrator did speedy delete and close the other discussion I alluded to above on the grounds that crosswiki redirection was close enough to cross-namespace redirection to be speediable under that criterion even though it's not already explicitly stated as such. So now that I know people will have my back if I come across any more of these, that's different — but I do tend to be reluctant to use speedy in edge cases where that might be questioned or challenged, because I've had far too many people come at me for things I've considered speediable in the past. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keeping out of the rationale that this article will be improved with more sourcing. If anyone disagrees after the article is improved, please consider renominating. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Theatre (Portland, Oregon)

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

Non-notable theater company. The only notice this company appears to have received outside of run-of-the-mill announcements of its shows was the fact that it had to sell its building, which apparently has some local historical notability of its own. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @WikiDan61: I wish you had raised this concern on the article's talk page before going straight to AfD. I see where you're coming from, but if I search "Imago Theatre" Portland via Google News, there are 875 returns. Yes, some of these are just calendar announcements or other minor blurbs, but there are also quite a few program reviews. I believe these could be collected to form a decent overview of the theatre company's program history. And these are not blogs -- these are reputable sources like Willamette Week, OPB News, Portland Mercury, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. These articles do not add up to nothing. And yes, apart from programs and reviews, there are other events such as the possible selling of its historic building, as reported by multiple reliable sources, as well as mentions in guide books of Portland, etc. In my opinion, this is an easy keep. Much more work is needed to expand the article, but the stub is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article may have been put on WikiDan61's radar because of recent problematic edits by a new editor, possibly one with a COI. I've tried getting this editor to discuss possible improvements on the talk page. But deletion is not the right course of action here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has acknowledged notability here. Can we close this discussion and remove the tag? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I acknowledged that "the discussion has asserted that the organization is, in fact, notable." That is not the same as acknowledging that notability myself. I maintain that my nomination was made in good faith; the discussion should be allowed to run its full length. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan61, You're right, my apologies. I will strike my comment above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I always believed your nomination was made in good faith. I was just trying to have the tag removed sooner than later when I misinterpreted your comment and thought you were acknowledging notability. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 18 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 under an only slightly creative interoretation of WP:CSD#R2, taking into account R4, hich is identical in effect - cross-project and cross-namespace are sufficiently close aalogues and the template use here so idiosyncratic that this would fail the "WTF" test. Guy (help!) 22:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Jugend & Volk

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

Ill-conceived page which has no actual content, but merely represents an incorrect use of a template to serve a function it isn't designed to serve. This was originally created as a soft redirect, pointing readers to the German Wikipedia's article on this topic in lieu of an English-language article about it -- but soft redirects are not supposed to be used that way in the first place: if we want content about it on the English Wikipedia, then the appropriate answer is to write an article about it in English, not to cross-redirect English speakers to a German article that they can't read as a substitute for an English article. But then that redirect was erased, and instead the page now serves only to tell readers that there's a Wikidata number for this. But that's also not what the "Wikidata redirect" template is for: it is not for creating crosswiki redirects to Wikidata, it is for crossreferencing Wikidata entries to titles that exist as internal redirects to another Wikipedia article. For example, because the word actress is an internal redirect to actor rather than a standalone article about actresses as a distinct topic, the "Wikidata redirect" template is used on that redirect so that it stays connected to its Wikidata entry — but that redirect's target is another Wikipedia article, not the Wikidata entry as a destination in and of itself. But instead, this page exists solely to divert readers to the Wikidata entry as a substitute for any content about it on the English Wikipedia, which is not what the template is for. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 15 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. Deleting due to inability to meet GNG. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Suborno

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suborno Bose, no indication of what has changed since then, as no new claims to notability seem to have appeared. Fram (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:17, 15 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. We're going to keep in order to see this article improved. Folks are welcome to renominate for re-consideration in the future. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan Holohan

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 15 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. Being bold and deleting this article. If someone wishes to mention it in an appropriate article, I'm happy to provide you a copy of the article in your userspace for use. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Secretary for International Affairs

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

This article is vague and poor-quality. Several "Assistant Secretaries for International Affairs" positions exist in the U.S., and until recently, this article only acknowledged the DHS position, and it still conflates at least two different positions in the list of officials. This position also doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and even if it does, it should probably be deleted per WP:TNT. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 15 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. Keeping at this time. Please expand and improve the article. If concerns remain about notability, please consider bringing up WP:MERGE on the article's talk page or re-nominating if deletion is preferred. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Web

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

Recreated after PROD deletion. No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:59, 15 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. Keeping, as the article meets general notability guidelines. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Records

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

No evidence of notability. Uncited for *over ten years*. (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - horribly written article, with no citations. However, this is an important record label, in that it was not only a reissue label (as per current article status), but issued otherwise unreleased material by The T-Bones ([3]), The Ventures, Henry Mancini, and Flip Wilson, among others. As a long time collector/researcher, I consider any label listed at Both Sides Now to be a notable label worthy of encyclopedic attention. There is probably in-depth information about Sunset at [4]. There's no preview, but my local library holds it and I'll look it up. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 15 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. Keeping this article for now. If this school fails general notability guidelines, renomination is warranted. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree International School, Kolkata

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

No notability established. Secondary schools are not automatically notable per the new guidelines. Following the nominations of several other schools. Tone 11:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination. per the new guidelines … please specify specific guidelines.Following the nominations of several other schools … what other schools? All vague and not specific. And has WP:BEFORE been read ? I see no sign of an attempt to tag the article as having problems of otherwise resolve per c#3 … If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as .... Bigdelboy (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me elaborate. I tagged the article as a prod, which was declined with the reason "accredited secondary school", which is not a notability rationale (neither has been addressed in the article). Other schools refer to a series of other schools that I recently deleted in AfDs as the closing admin (check my deletion log). An online search shows no relevant sources apart from school-related ones and some passing mentions. Therefore, fails the GNG. --Tone 07:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A declined PROD should not lead to a "red mist" AfD avoiding a proper WP:BEFORE. There is still no preciseness of the policies/guidelines being alluded to which is poor example of an Wikipedia Admin referring to a educational institution deletion when these people should be encouraged towards precision. Recent Schools brought up for consideration of deletion have been typically Asia related in the run up to Christmas new year and have possibly swamped Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. It is actually unclear to me, but I am stupid, that anyone actually has a deletion log, though I guess the information may be gleaned from here [5].Bigdelboy (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Nomination just vindictive. References show it was notable ('to be noted') in the past therefore is always notable. If it were truely not to be note, the nominator has a obligation to prove he has done due diligence, online in English and this case Bengali and in paper sources in the relevant local archives. ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion we are alerted to other articles that have been falsely deleted due the misunderstanding, in the spirit of NPOV I suggest an admin locates them and a full review is done.ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 15 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. Article fails to meet GNG. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheios

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

No significant coverage found, no company article to merge to. Talk page message from 2010 suggests nominating article for deletion, notability template in place since 2008. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:53, 15 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 The Viral Fever. Redirecting per Mattg82. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvf cubicles

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

Fails WP:GNG and the content seems to be promotional. The article solely relies upon a single source. Abishe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 15 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. Thanks AllyD for your due diligence. Deleting this article for the time being. WP:REFUND applies if notability is met. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totem Dance Group

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NN. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 15 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 defaulting to keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Partsch

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

Fails GNG. Apart from sharing name with a musicologist, there is simply no coverage about him in reliable independent sources. He appears to be mentioned in "Supercharging Supply Chains: New Ways to Increase Value Through Global Operational Excellence", but I have no way of accessing this book. I could find no other print or online sources apart from that single one. Of those listed in the References section, some appear non-independent (or outright written by himself), and others are industry publications which would obviously fail to provide evidence of his notability due to their nature. In any case, his career looks like a run of the mill industry career, with no significance that would hint at inclusion. PK650 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the nomination I went back and rephrased, added further independent sources to underline the relevance of the person for Supply Chain Management. Understanding the guidelines, the changes I made in the article should now meet the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability of the person, neutral information and reliability. Basically I included more neutral resources, most of them German Newspapers that demonstrated the reliability of the information. For WirtschaftsWoche I added a link to the documents. For the other magazines I don’t have websites but have a copy of the documents in printed version, so I can upload/share them if necessary (not sure how Wikipedia treats this kind of information). I also added as a reference a video from the CSMCP (a neutral organization) that cites the article of WirtschaftsWoche as the first documented project in Supply Chain. The video is not anymore in the CSCMP page but I linked it on youtube (can also upload it separately). Additionally to this resources, the book written by Dr. Partsch is available on Amazon, so it can be accessed and checked at any time. And finally, I modified the article to explain with more detail the contribution made by Partsch to the Supply Chain Management arena and how he was the author of big milestones in its creation and early development. I hope this meets the guidelines better - open to learn! Kongolese (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He appears to be author "Supercharging Supply Chains" book, for clarity's sake. It shows 371 cites on GScholar, with two other papers at 25 and 14 cites, and the rest at <10. @Kongolese: it would be helpful if the article was more specific about what the references supported. Text-only refs are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but the current sourcing in the article leaves some ambiguity, as there's not much info regarding the depth of the coverage, and multiple sources are sometimes used to demonstrate very broad statements (e.g. refs 7, 8, & 9). Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:21, 15 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. Keeping for the time being based on Toughpigs rationale. Please consider improving, or reaching out to an editor with knowledge of Chinese media, to help improve it. If that fails, feel free to WP:PROD. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Destined One

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

A run-of-the-mill TV show with no significant media coverage. The only marginally noteworthy aspect of the show is the possible "scandal" (I use this idiom in the broadest possible terms) of one of the participants being in a relationship, and this would fail WP:SINGLEEVENT. With the proliferation of online media, there are millions of TV shows being made each year, and there's nothing to demonstrate the notably of this one. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see some coverage of the show's crossover with a fictional show, My One in a Million, on a marketing site and in an interview with one of the One in a Million cast members. It's not a lot, but it's a little hard to judge just by searching in English. I expect that an editor who knows Chinese media would find more coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 15 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squidbillies characters

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

Lack of sourcing. Per recent deletions through AfD, "list of character" articles are not being seen as notable without extensive sourcing. This has nothing: one reddit (!) source, not even anything in-universe. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka t•c 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or editorial merge The only character list for a long running TV show. Of course, if there was local consensus to trim&merge it back to the show article (which doesn't summarize the characters at all except for in a table), I wouldn't be opposed either. – sgeureka t•c 17:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Neither of the comments opining to keep have explained how this list passes our notability guidelines. J947 (c), at 23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I'd say selective merge, but the character list appears to have nothing salvageable. This should be started from scratch in the main article's character section, focusing on the main characters. TTN (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per suggestion at UTP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 00:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラP 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it doesn't fit in the main article, spinoff articles are always created for character lists for notable series. Dream Focus 10:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not. Now maybe they ought to be (I'd support that), but our most recent practice is that LoC articles are being zapped wholesale, even for multi-book series with Hollywood movies (Mortal Engines, Kill Bill, Tolkien). Why should Squidbillies get a pass, especially when it's itself so lacking in sourcing? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are over 90% of the time. Its about whatever random few people notice and show up at an AFD that determines things. Category:Lists of characters in American television animation shows a lot of these articles, plus many other categories showing additional things like this exist. And of course Tolkien's characters have their own long detailed list at List of Middle-earth characters. Mortal Engines has its character list at Fever_Crumb_(series)#Characters. As for Kill Bill, that's just two movies, and the main article list the characters in cast. Not that much to write about most of them. One has their own article though The Bride (Kill Bill). Dream Focus 17:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters For that matter, Kill Bill is about four or five films (depending on which you count).
    Why did you say four or five? The navbox shows only two Kill Bill films. ミラP 03:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to type up all the recent Tolkien deletions, character lists and everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell?! Kill Bill is two films. And listing every single obscure character that was briefly mentioned in a single sentence in of Tolkien's books, is what was deleted, not the main character list article. As for the Mortal Engine list that was deleted, one person nominated it, one person showed up and said delete, and no one else voted on what to do with it, so it got deleted. Must not have been anything to it that wasn't in the main article, I don't know, since its gone now and doesn't matter. You can't use that as an excuse to erase thousands of character list articles of course. In most AFDs they are kept. Dream Focus 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kill Bill shares a universe and characters with other films, some of which are out (Reservoir Dogs) and a couple of follow-ons which are supposed to be somewhere in production. But Tarantino likes backstory, and he likes his backstories to join up offstage.
    The Mortal Engines character list was deleted on almost no involvement by other editors (this is called "unanimous consensus" on Wikipedia) and not even a comment from the closing admin. This is why I've been calling at AfD for fomalisation of a minimum quorum for such an AfD to be valid. TTN (and just a couple of others) is listing vast numbers of fiction-related articles at AfD and unless you happen to have that exact article watchlisted, there's no notification across the main articles for a series. So we're losing fiction articles like crazy, on the votes of just half-a-dozen editors.
    Still, it's better than Commons, where CfDs are equally narrowly visible, then they expand afterwards so that category trees which had never even been mentioned in the CfD get deleted too. Then they hold a second CfD, after the deletion.
    But, Squidbillies? Sourcing, much? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: FWIW I've put a bit of advice at Dream Focus's UTP. ミラP 03:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see an argument that this passes our notability guidelines here. We really can't just keep this article how it is I think (and I'm no proponent of TNT). J947 (c), at 22:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. For such a long-running show, there is surprisingly little RS about the characters. I guess cable cartoons for grownups are dime-a-dozen nowadays. I realize there's an OTHERSTUFF argument that could be made w/r/t other lists for other cartoons, but I don't think OTHERSTUFF is strong enough on its own to save a sourceless list. ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 15 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Jalili

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Although I don't know Persian, the sources look like simple database listings with very little significant coverage. A google search shows up nothing of an reliability. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 15 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. Deleting based on the investigations of participants. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Dol-Combourg

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

There was no such thing as the Duchy of Dol-Combourg. This page is either a hoax or a misunderstanding. Its creator has long been banned. There are no results at either Google Books or Google Scholar for any of the following terms: "Duchy of Dol-Combourg", "Duchy of Dol", "Duchy of Combourg", "Duché de Dol-Combourg", "Duché de Dol", "Duché de Combourg". There was a lordship of Combourg and is ruling family was called the Dol-Combourg, but this page isn't about it or them in any way. The reference to the Holy Roman Empire is nonsense. The list of bishops is just duplicated from the real article on the bishopric. There are no sources, there is no way of improving or fixing this and the title is totally made-up. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The amount of details in the article cited to absolutely no sources is certainly suspicious. But, even if this was not an intentional hoax, but a well-meaning mistake, it still should not be retained due to the utter lack of sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of real (if obscure) people mentioned but none of them link back to this mythical duchy. No sources at all despite the apparent depth of coverage. Looks like a hoax. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: This source[6] finds mention of a seigneury (not a duchy) of Dol-Combourg, but this source itself is poorly referenced and self published. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding and not a hoax, but it is still wrong and wholly unsourced, so deletion remains appropriate. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And another source (in French) confirming the seigneurie Dol-Combourg (although French Wikipedia speaks only of "des seigneurs de Combourg" [[7]] can be found here.[8]. This book confirms the French list saying "après la mort de Jean, seigneur de Dol-Combourg, en 1162..." so Jean died in 1162 which is what French Wikipedia says. This page has a completely different list for this imaginary Duchy. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a real castle, the Château de Combourg, so it's not likely to be a hoax. More likely some sort of linguistic confusion , and possibly variations in the rank/title of the seigneur over the centuries.IceFishing (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The content appears to be a cut and paste job from Ancient Diocese of Dol. As I read the article, it was clear to me that it was not about a Duchy, but about a bishopric, claiming metropolitan status. The conflict with Tours described may have been part of a counterpart of the attempts by the medieval Dukes of Brittany to be independent of the French crown. This would not haver been part of the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Charlemagne, or possibly one of his early descendants, before the title of Emperor became attached to the German ruler. It is not exactly a hoax, but probably fake news or a variety of distorted history. I wondered about a redirect, but think plain deletion is better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. It's not clear it actually existed. If this were fictional, it could be notable like Grand Fenwick, but it's too difficult to source. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 22 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. North America1000 07:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Park

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

Seems to fail GNG/NCMPANY: no evidence of in-depth coverage, awards or such. Published (NOT developed, just a local distributor! Possibly localized?) a few games but WP:NOTINHERITED. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disputed prod, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 15 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. Deleting based on the rationale presented by Beemer69. Thanks for evaluating those sources. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potion-making: Practice

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

The previous AfD, which mainly leant towards deleting, was closed as no consensus. Since then I do not see anything to make any case for notability, and the refs are still all self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 15 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. Keeping based on information presented by the community. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antin Infrastructure Partners

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

Company seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Coverage is limited to press releases or reprints of, all reporting ROUTINE business as usual (start up seeks funding, start up gets funding, etc.). WP:CORPSPAM. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that if you are going to own that much of the UK gas distribution system and 40% of all the trains in the UK you need to raise a lot of money. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the routine-sounding headlines, the two articles from FT [1][2] and this article from Reuters [3] are not merely 'routine business announcements' but are substantial coverage of investments (historic and recent), detailing significant impacts on transportation and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Telegraph article [4] is also substantial coverage, and Antin did not provide comment to the authors. I'm not sensing churnalism from any of the aforementioned articles, and given the scale of the investments they make, I've no doubt that there's more to be uncovered. When I first stumbled on the entry in October I initially thought the PROD made sense, but in further digging, the subject easily passes the requirements of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. The sources offered above do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. For example, [12] is an interview and does not count towards notability. It includes: Our approach is the same as that of a traditional private equity fund," explains Alain Rauscher. Our objective is to create value by providing financing to companies to develop them.; His interventions are invariably subject to the filter of what he calls the "infra-test". Etc. The Reuters source [13] is a routine announcement: Antin Infrastructure Partners has hired investment banks to kick-start a potential $1.5 billion-plus sale of one of Britain’s biggest gas pipelines, banking sources and an executive at a subsidiary of the buyout fund said.. I don't see notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Disagreed on Reuters. I understand the first two paragraphs being chalked off as a routine announcement, but in the 6 paragraphs that follow the authors go on to discuss the history of Antin's acquisition of CATS, and PE attention to infrastructure in the region, making the piece more substantial than a routine announcement. Any thoughts on the two Financial Times articles linked above? Pegnawl (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. It is not apparent that those paragraphs are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. For me, based on the fact that it starts out as an announcement, there's nothing to indicate that the whole thing isn't an announcement. HighKing 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm charitable, but it seems just as likely the author leveraged a routine announcement to segue into a more substantial article. Agree to disagree; striking Reuters, do you have feelings on the two Financial Times [1][2] or the Telegraph [4]? That the Telegraph calls this company an "infrastructure giant" gave me pause, and this was the point at which I decided to de-PROD. Or maybe it was the "owns 1/3 of all trains running in the UK" from the FT that struck me as notable. Pegnawl (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep, having reviewed the updated article I am satisfied that both The Telegraph and the FT articles broadly meet the criteria for establishing notability. Strike previous !vote. HighKing 13:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the company already meets the GNG. As it does more deals there will be more and more coverage so I see little advantage in deleting now only to have it recreated in a year. It helps that the article is in no way promotional and not likely to become so as they don't need us to promote them. It is perfectly normal for journalists to leverage press releases and other primary sources as the basis of a new secondary source as, for instance, The Telegraph did here. They have to base their stories on something and in my experience neither The Telegraph nor the FT are in the business of simply repeating press releases. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some more articles. When the sources are viewed in their entirety, they do amount to significant coverage. Moreover, no one seems to be able to view the FT articles. Unlike most companies, private equity firms generally try to avoid publicity. After all, buying up infrastructure in multiple countries with a view to making it more efficient, performing some "financial engineering" and reselling it for profit is never going to endear you to the general public, especially those who think that infrastructure should be in the public sector anyway. We have a duty to our readers to provide factual NPOV articles on such companies, particularly those who have raised Euro 8 billion. Edwardx (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion now Philafrenzy and Edwardx have improved the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 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. WP:V is not negotiable. And it's not been rebutted that much of this content is not verifiable. Sandstein 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of El Chavo del Ocho episodes

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

Mostly all the information in the episode list are assumptions, there are no reliable sources to verify such facts. The only reliable page that has information about the episodes is this, and that page does not show all the information that appears here on Wikipedia.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - episode lists are an important part of TV series articles. The format of that article is horrendous, but that is because it's not using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}. --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the list of episodes could be saved, how can we know on which day the episodes were released and what would be the lost episodes? According to this page, some episodes were lost during the 1985 earthquake in Mexico and with them enough information about it. And this information is only found in forums, YouTube videos and untrusted pages.  Bradford  (Talk) 14:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding what is lost vs not lost, that is not a core aspect of an episode list so it if we don't have info, just don't add it. Regarding the dates, while I'm sure somewhere this information is found, I'd rather have sub-optimal sources like [14] or even [15] that have the air date information, then not have them at all. --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, so we only have a broadcast date for some seasons and episodes, but not for the rest? However, more than that, there is too much information that is not backed by reliable sources. IMDb is not a really reliable source. IMDb and MSN claim that the series had 9 seasons, but in vecindadch.com only 7 seasons appear plus some lost episodes, so it is impossible to know in which order the episodes go or which were the first to air. However, in Spanish Wikipedia and the others a total of 8 seasons appears, and in Spanish Wikipedia they erased the list of episodes for several obvious reasons[16].BRADFORD talk 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Episode lists are normally fine, but this one is so over-detailed with fancruft, not to mention the contradictory and unreliably sourced information about the lost episodes. If there is that much content that is so utterly unverifiable, then it shouldn't be included. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 15 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 YG Entertainment. Lourdes 17:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure (band)

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO scope_creepTalk 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 15 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. Keeping this article. If folks want to see it merged/split/whatever please consider discussing in the relevant WikiProject and/or on the talk page of the article. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Football player

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

This article is completely unneeded because there isn't anything to say about it beyond a dictionary definition. A football player is someone who plays football. Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content appropriately to various football articles, or refine scope and rename (probably to health risks of association football, if such an article doesn't already exist somewhere). The bulk of this article pertains to health risks of playing association football. Another substantial portion is dedicated to wages of association football players. The lead provides an absurd spread of focus, claiming the article is about every person who plays everything from gridiron to soccer to rugby. Other sports redirect to the main article on the sport if you append "player" to the name. We definitely don't need an article about players of a broad range of distinct sports that are only related by geographical naming conventions. Skeletor3000 (Skeletor3000) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and merge content to relevant codes of football. Makes no sense to try to collate this material and "compare" apples to oranges. Aoziwe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS Probably then replace with a disambiguation page pointing to all the football player codes. Note also Footballer redirects to here. Aoziwe (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify with your question, as my suggestion above for how to merge seems to already contain your answer. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You voted merge - which would eliminate this article. I'd think Keep would make more sense ... and then follow the earlier proposal to split the gridiron stuff elsewhere. Your comments seem to contradict your merge vote. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of the problems with the lede doesn't imply those are the only problems present. The bulk of the article talks about injuries to players of association football. The career section is straight drivel, starting with descriptions of the sport itself and then continuing with the asinine explanation that athletes start as amateurs before becoming professional. The wage section would be more appropriately presented in articles on individual athletes or leagues, and likely already exists in those places in many instances. If it's kept, non-injury content should be removed, and this article's title should be "Health risks in association football" or something similar. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. Nothing precludes fixing the article during the vote. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree with (Skeletor3000). Merge into athlete to prevent proliferation of similar pages such as Rugby player, badminton player etc. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is well referenced, and also exists in dozens of other languages. I see no basis here for deletion or merging. There was however a relatively recent discussion at Talk:Football player#Split proposal to split the American/gridiron information from the soccer information, that hasn't yet been done, despite support, that would address any multi-sport concerns. Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absolutely fine. GiantSnowman 20:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It offers specific discussion about the player of the sport that makes no sense to merge into another article. No need for basic information about the various sports that are discussed in other articles to be included in this article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced, seems notable. I don't share the multi-sport concerns, as football is ambiguous internationally. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reread the article and there are some aspects that I think are bordering on WP:TNT. The articles terminology jumps between generic "football" and often "association football" misleading the reader. Some of the references, while they use the word "football", would appear to be actually referring to "association football", yet they are cited against the generic word "football". For an article that includes "medical information" I think such needs a very thorough review if the article is allowed to stay. Also, it needs to properly refer readers to far more detailed articles such as Concussions in sport. There is also non clear discussion in other areas, eg, wages, referrring to "top leagues" when it means "top association football leagues". Aoziwe (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's good for a laugh. In addition to the melange of undefined types of football, some highlights - "Sport person", "Once signed, some learn to play better football", the insertion of the isolated sentence about penalty kicks, and the random list of body parts at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 04:07, 21 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 16:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Earth

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

Pointless dePROD. Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 15 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 (A7). (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Newton (academic)

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO. References are a mix of blogs, and wordpress sites. No coverage. References are for the most part primary. scope_creepTalk 14:37, 15 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 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piumi Hansamali

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

Non notable actress falling short of WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE showes no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is well know actress and model of Sri Lanka. In 2016, she received Mrs. Nobel Queen award. In 2017, she grabbed the Best model of asia title. She also main actress of Wassanaye Sanda Sinhala movie as role Mihiri which is directed by Udayakantha Warnasuriya. She judged the Future Faces of the World 2019. She is notable woman. If someone said,she is not notable that's funny thing. She also starts to act in Malayalam film. WeTalkWiki 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 thanks for that imperative action.Celestina007 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WeTalkWiki, okay so listen Ref bombing in order to fool the unsuspecting editor with a host of unreliable sources & usage of Facebook & Instagram as means of proving notability says loudly how non notable subject of our discussion is. You may need to read the WP:GNG policy before creating other articles in future. Lastly the manner in which you have placed this references here are very disruptive & hurtful to the eyes, well at least mine. Cheers.Celestina007 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I mentioned facebook here coz it's official facebook page of that movie Wassanaye Sanda(its not a reliable source). I think you have lack of knowledge about finding articles(maybe your lazzyness. don't do it again). You know some websites mentioned here are famous site of that country. If you don't know about things, you should remain silent otherwise you will be disappointed(with respect). I dont know how these ref hurts to you but after watching these anyone can say she's notable and your investigation about things are very poor. Thank you! WeTalkWiki 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WeTalkWiki Do lay off the personal attacks & calling me lazy, which I am anything but, is quite uncivil & constitutes a personal attack. So back to business, we need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that someone or something is notable without which we are unable to tell or verify notability claims. Now get to work & come up with those reliable sources. Cheers.Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. How that is personal attack? Akward? Lazzness is a word which means someone who doesnt do his or her work in correct manner(according to my knowledge). How is that attack? Im out of idea? Yeah. I'm in the business. Thank you! WeTalkWiki 17:49, 15 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. Sandstein 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

edit
Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. Planes have to dump fuel in case of an emergency landing. WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is just mill news. But I guess congrats to the kids who are gonna get their college tuition paid for! Praxidicae (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too soon. Planes dumping fuel may be routine, but a plane dumping fuel at low altitude in a dense city with the inevitable resulting lawsuits and ongoing coverage is certainly not routine. There may be WP:LASTING effects with an FAA investigation, so maybe renominate in due course if that's not the case.----Pontificalibus 13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to fuel dumping since that's the only aspect of the incident that seems to be of any note, and the latter article doesn't talk about the effects on the ground of the dumped fuel. Even if there are FAA findings they are likely to be specific to that practice. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Generated huge amount of news and also an unusual incident. It needs some improvements though. (Gabinho>:) 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Characterizing this as a routine fuel dump ignores everything about this story. It is a highly unusual aviation incident for an aircraft in the US to dump large amounts of fuel at low altitude over a heavily populated area. While the victims weren’t aboard the aircraft, this incident caused dozens of injuries (Now up to 60 reported), and is receiving substantial media attention and a full government investigation. There’s little doubt this is a sufficiently notable aviation incident. The article needs improvement, but that’s not a valid reason to AfD it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to fuel dumping for same reasons as Mangoe and WP:NOT. Other than the schoolkids zero notability. Fuel dumping is normal emergency operating procedure. The Captain failed to comply, no dramas no notability, the same as "the driver failed to stop at a stop sign"!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I have substantially improved the page, including a rewrite and additional of additional cites. It's definitely clearer that it passes WP:GNG now. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't.--Petebutt (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”No it isn’t” is not exactly a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't definitely clearer that it passes WP:GNG now. Feel better now.--Petebutt (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I was still hoping for a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the article again; this incident has now led to call for new safety policies at another airport (Sea-Tac) to have a response for surrounding communities if a fuel dump on the community occurred there. This incident is now driving discussions of safety reforms beyond the neighborhood where it occurred, which further demonstrates likelihood of lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The procedures were not at fault. They were not adhered to!! Sea-Tac only knee-jerking. We don't have articles on wikipedia because someones knee jerked!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do have articles about incidents on Wikipedia because they led to policy or procedure changes, though. If this incident is driving new demands for emergency response plans specific to fuel dumping on densely populated areas near major airports, and is the catalyst for that demand for change, that alone makes this incident notable. For determining notability it doesn’t matter if you think new ERPs are really needed in your opinion, it only matters that calls to action driven by this incident exist, which at this point they do. If that never materializes into meaningful change and this incident fades into obscurity, this page can be re-nominated for deletion in a year or two, but for now there’s clearly sufficient indicia of notability and deletion is inappropriate. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that would conflict with the usual policy that large aircraft incidents are notable if they result in changes to regulations or procedures. Why the inconsistency? Shelbystripes (talk) 17:18, 17 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. Merging, as alternatively suggested, would require reliable sources for the content to be merged, and there's no indication that any exist. Sandstein 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanx Commonwealth races

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

List of fictional minutia that fails to establish notability and does not justify a spinout article. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 15 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 16:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles alien races

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

List of fictional minutia that fails to establish notability. It is not a justified spinout because the details of these fictional species can easily be described in the context of the plot of the series in which they appear. The individual characters, if even important enough, are also covered within the context of each TMNT series. TTN (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 15 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 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Rooms

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

One review is not sufficient to establish notability. Listing in RPG.net is just that, a listing, not a review. Couldn't find any books that even reference this set. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per available sources, or merge to List of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay publications. BOZ (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BOZ, on every AfD you state the same "Keep per available sources", but you never actually engage the nomination statement or provide actual sources to establish notability. Could you please have an actual discussion instead of a straight !vote? I understand that you, as the one that created all these articles, wants to keep them, but the amount of articles you have created which have been either deleted or redirected is rather worying, and AfD statements like this do nothing to indicate that you actually understand (or care) about what should and shouldn't have a separate article. Fram (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Grog does not appear to be a reliable source, but a user-generated one. The page, in question, appears to be nothing more than a basic set of information on the product, and then a user review. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guide du rôliste galactique (GRoG) is not a user-generated site, it is an on-line encyclopedia about role-playing games created and administered by an association of the same name. It has been a fixture of the French role-playing scene since 2000. The reviews attached to some of the game descriptions are moderated user-generated reviews, but the encyclopedic content is created and maintained by GRoG. You can find more information on the French Wikipedia site at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_du_roliste_galactique. If you don't speak French, the Google Translate service via Chrome does an adequate job.Guinness323 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and the non-user review portion of the linked page is, as I said, nothing more than a database entry on the game's basic information, no different than the already mentioned RPG.net source. It shows that WP:ITEXISTS and nothing more. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Note that Guinness323 gets specifically invited to these AfDs, and that analysis of Le Grog has been done at other AfDs as well, to no avail. It is a good website, but it is basically a controlled wiki, and doesn't give any more notability than e.g. IMDb does for films, Discogs for music, or Boardgamegeek for boardgames or rolaplaying games. Fram (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le GRoG is a database only in the sense that its editors list and describe role-playing games and books that are considered good enough enough for inclusion. Not nearly everything makes the grade, only the items that the administrators feel are noteworthy. Yes, the list of inclusions is large (over 8000 at present), but the universe of role-playing games is large, and growing larger each year. The site is independent of any games company or organization, and being nominated for their "GRoG d'Or" (Golden GRoG) annual award for game of the year is touted on both sides of the Atlantic as a significant achievement. (Example here from the American company Posthuman Studios: https://eclipsephase.com/eclipse-phase-nominated-grog-dor )Guinness323 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the site had actually given this product that award, you might have an argument. But it didn’t, and the only information it contains regarding it is a bare bones straight description of the product. That is not significant coverage, and does absolutely nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 19 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. Very poor discussion, but the (cursory) deletion request makes compelling arguments. The article is indeed highly promotional, and would be speediable per WP:G11: "Madonna’s team of highly specialized physiatrists, hospitalists, therapists, rehabilitation nurses, clinicians and researchers work with the most advanced technology and equipment to help each patient achieve the highest level of independence", "the facility begins to earn its reputation for excellence". Moreover, the article is unsourced, save for a broken link to some directory. Core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V, therefore mandate deletion. The article can be recreated by an editor without a conflict of interest if they manage to find reliable third-party sources for the topic. Sandstein 09:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:40, 15 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 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exalted Saviour

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

Fringe metal band with only unreliable sources and blogs that discuss them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:38, 15 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. Sandstein 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidechain (ledger)

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

No evidence nor claim of notability. No references - past references were entirely crypto sites, not RSes. I've just searched mainstream RSes and Google Scholar and found zero coverage of sidechains in either. No good redirect targets. I only file this as an AFD because it was PRODed already, but never improved. I would love to be proven wrong about the notability of blockchain sidechains, with some mainstream or peer-reviewed RSes ... David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Google Scholar, I found a bit more than "zero coverage":
Jhfrontz (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jhfrontz: this might constitute significant coverage from reliable sources, but this is not clear from the links alone. One-by-one:
  • This is a list of search results. Which particular papers present significant coverage of sidechains?
  • This is a pending patent. Per WP:PATENTS, "patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes". Thus is gives little credence to notability.
  • This publisher of this book is a print on demand service. It still could be used as a source, but is less reliable than a peer-reviewed piece or book from an academic press.
Overall, it is unclear that these sources are any better than the "crypto sites" that @Retimuko: removed from the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BenKuykendall: Thanks for the clarifications.
I'm not really sure how to proceed from this point -- should I continue identifying sources (and adding them to this (or the original article) page?). Also, I should re-state my disclosure: I work for a company that pioneered sidechains and thus I'm not sure how that should guide/temper my participation in this discussion. --Jhfrontz (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking further guidance, I opted to enhance the page by adding [what I think are "RS"] references and a couple of links to other pages (as part of additional explanatory text). Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sidechain_(ledger)&type=revision&diff=936099540&oldid=933240223 . --Jhfrontz (talk) 18:22, 16 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) 07:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin (Brazilian band)

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

Non-notable band. Could not find any Portuguese language print or online sources either. The references listed in the article include: their record company's website; a 2018 event page with ticket pricing; an Esperanto blog post; lyrics for a song; and a website that no longer exists. Therefore fails both NMUSIC and GNG. PK650 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:45, 15 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. The time has come for someone to put their foot down. And that foot is me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional fraternities and sororities

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

This list seems to not meet WP:LISTN. None of the listed fraternities and sororities have articles, and all of the cited sources discuss just a single fictional fraternity or sorority. There is no evidence that fictional fraternities and sororities are notable as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 15 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 deleted WP:A7 by Billinghurst. (non-admin closure) ミラP 04:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yusof Mutahar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previously AfDed for same reason [[17]]. A quick search of Google News shows all the Press Releases in a trial to recreate the page. (Al)most all the references in article are paid posts too. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the last article there was been significant independent coverage after movie production as well as album and books hence me thought it was justified to make wiki. If you search his name in Bengali here, You will find news from several newspaper as well as in print version. Also as he is a former Judo and has a profile on on the International Judo Federation here and has worked in film which push me to make an wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davion Robinson (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The few Bengali sites I have now looked at also seem to be cookie cut shared material? Aoziwe (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article can fall in WP:NPOV as there are independent sources for album and movies. Availability of 2 medical books on Google Books. LeungChow (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. I searched him in Googlenews and discovered lots of news-related references here Per the search, WP:GNG is clearly met also. This is never a case of WP:SALT. Salting policy applies when there's a case of repeated blatant recreations. Catorce2016 (talk) 03:58, 17 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.
 Comment: Thanks Miraclepine. I was working through this by other data means, hadn't seen the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 06:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Boztepe

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, Subject has only appeared twice inside two martial arts magazines and never on a front cover nor in any news articles. Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 05:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Any publicity that the subject has received has mainly come from more notable individuals linked in the article (Jacqueline Bisset, William Cheung, the Gracies, etc.). No improvement to the article since its first AfD in 2010. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 05:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The practitioner doesn't meet notability requirements in regards to references, many references are from low quality sources that lack notability in their own right. The whole page has an autobiographical ring to it, and sounds like one man's adventures and disputes with people much more famous than him.Jamesniederle (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Few sources used met WP:GNG. Requires more to scale through Catorce2016 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of articles inside martial art magazines don’t make someone notable, the are literally thousands of martial artists with the same thing or more. There is not a single news source or front cover mention to back it up. Jaxbrother (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSubject fails WP:MMABIO for not having any top tier promotion fight. Subject also does not secured any major BJJ title but only being a practitioner. Fighting with the Gracie family is not WP:NOTINHERITED. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forming your own martial arts organization and being romantically linked to someone notable are not grounds for WP notability. He clearly fails meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). Passing mentions and coverage from his own organization plus a little coverage of his disputes with existing organizations do not impress me as being sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 19 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) 06:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Élodie Chérie

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

Despite my best efforts to improve coverage about pornographic actors in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Élodie Chérie does not pass WP:GNG. I have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject, including in French and using French language Wikipedia. Ms. Chérie does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in our efforts. Missvain (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 15 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. North America1000 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lehmann

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

Non-notable game designer with no third-party coverage. Article contains a large amount of red links and its only citation since its 2006 creation has been a self-published source. The few games therein that have articles are also lacking in independent coverage. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:59, 15 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) 06:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glazier Systems

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

no evidence of notability , though I recognize it's hard finding material for companies like this in the 19990s. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was an active developer at the time in a similar area and have not heard of them - although they operated in a different country and I did not focus wholly on Windows so this in itself is not enough for deletion. Nevertheless the reason I go with delete is that this page describes the technology they used (ASP) and their general focus (desktop database systems for Windows) but does not even describe one product they released, and does not actually make sense (why make a Windows only MS Access clone for the web when Windows has Access?). The article writer appears confused because the Intergen website suggests they began with Windows software and quickly branched out into web design. The short history here:[18] tells us that they were primarily web developers (internet and intranet) which was probably lucrative, but not remarkable. If Intergen got an article, Glazier systems would be in the history of that but it is not notable on its own. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources I find are merely mentions in articles about Rod Drury who co-founded the company. I was (still part-time contractually) a developer as well and can say this company was one of hundreds that were gobbled up just for proprietary reasons. They were a dime a dozen and this one doesn't seem to have been notable enough to gain significant coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 18 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. North America1000 05:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brice

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

Despite the best efforts of myself and other editors in our attempts to improve coverage about pornographic actors in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Lauren Brice does not pass WP:GNG. We have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject. Now, perhaps folks want to see winners of AVN Best Actress be inherently notable, but, at this point, Ms. Brice does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in our efforts. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I snort-laughed when I read your comment! LOL. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 16 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 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shajan Skariah

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

Promotionally-toned article. Subject appears non-notable, not reliably sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST and WP:LAWYER. WP:BLP of a former editor of two WP:MILL websites called, Marunadan Malayali (recently deleted) and British Malayali, and former sub-editor of Deepika Daily as per the current statements of the article. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 02:14, 15 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 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Akoa

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

Non-notable model. Two sources available, and both look like paid puffery: see [19] and [20]. Fails general notability, and hasn't won any significant awards or done anything that could otherwise warrant inclusion. Note that "doing campaigns" for big names is a typical strategy used in biographies to appear notable. The fact is these "campaigns" are usually no more than a stock photo used in shopfronts, etc. PK650 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:34, 15 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) 01:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Crichton

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

Not to be confused with RR Crichton, who is a widely cited biochemist, Rose Crichton is currently a lab technician, and as such fails NACADEMIC, particularly criteria 5. As for criteria 1 of said guideline, she has no widely cited articles. In fact, not even her recent PhD thesis has been cited, which by the way is too recent (2014) to even consider her impact in her field, save extraordinary circumstances, which in this case do not exist. Therefore she is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC, nor is there coverage in independent sources to warrant notability per WP:GNG. PK650 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 05:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trilok Singh Chitarkar

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

Non notable painter who doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falling short of WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO also. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This painter's work mostly focused on Sikh religion, whose resources are generally available in Punjabi language. There is scarcity of online resources of this language and his work. Most notable is that one researcher has been awarded Ph.D. degree by Punjabi University on critical work of this single painter's work[1][2] and One book titled Chitralok's contribution to Art has been published in Punjabi language by Department of Languages, Punjab in year 1984.[3] Trilok Singh was a state artist in erstwhile PEPSU state of Punjab.[4] Many Punjabi newspapers share stories about the inspiring works of this artist.[5][6][7][8]This painter is notable and this article needs time for further expansion. More sources of painter's must be available online and may be added in due course of time. People of Punjabi origin could better judge about notability of this artist. (Quality Check (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

References

edit
  1. ^ Ph.D. awarded by PU
  2. ^ Research work on painter
  3. ^ http://www.triloksinghartist.com/aboutus12.html
  4. ^ Punjabi Tribune newspaper
  5. ^ https://punjabtimesusa.com/news/?p=22368
  6. ^ http://ph-media.ca/24819-9/
  7. ^ Painter's biography
  8. ^ http://www.mediapunjab.com/pages?id=9/20190815/Poad
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 15 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) 01:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SRT Entertainments

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

Film production article with sources that focus on the films they produce, nothing that focuses on the production company itself. Only films produced, will probably meet GNG in a few more films as they gain further coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:15, 15 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) 01:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Ratcliffe

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

No evidence this person is a notable actor, despite the claims in the article. His only major role is a 4 episode appearance (one of which is uncredited on The Outsiders. The rest is all cruft. I'm also not sure how one can guest star on a series in an unnamed role ("auctioneer", for example.) I can also find absolutely no real coverage of Ratcliffe. Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wm335td you misunderstand major roles. Appearing in a notable show as an unnamed character or an extra is not major or significant. Praxidicae (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:14, 15 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. Sandstein 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Fernández Menéndez

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has been tagged as such for over 11 years. Although it has a Spanish and Arabic article, they are just direct copies of this, with no real sourcing or evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One important detail from the Spanish article is that he received a National Journalism Award for best editorial in 2000.[21] He's also referenced on the award's main page[22]. If I'm incorrect on this award establishing notability, please let me know.Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:14, 15 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 merge to K.G.F: Chapter 1, with eventual redirect of "Rocky (character)" to Rocky (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (character)

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

None of the information in the article is in the citations. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:21, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_15&oldid=1142225008"