< 24 December	26 December >

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ossë[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only reliable sources I can find mentioning this character only mention him in passing (for instance, in a list of one hundred-odd names found only in the works of Tolkien). Fails WP:GNG. Soft delete and redirect to Maiar is also acceptable. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ossë is one of the most obscure characters in The Silmarillion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is amazing that people had the patientce to create articles on such minor characters. At one point did we have articles on every name used in all the works of Tolkien?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was first created in July 2002. That is very early in the history of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ossë, can you see, by the dawn's early light, any notability? Me neither. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my prod rationale (fails GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and now it is a WP:SNOW delete. Wm335td (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft per wp:gng. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Krishna[edit]

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

Unknown actor with no notable references. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The article needs a lot of work. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmarë[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of real-world notability. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This character is only notable from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a non-character even in as minor a work as the Silmarillion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but should it be added to List of Middle-earth characters page? Earnsthearthrob (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my prod rationale (fails GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, is not notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character WP:SNOW. Wm335td (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nomination.-Nahal^(T) 19:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Kanarek[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney. His sole claim to fame was his involvement in the Manson trials, which is not enough to establish lasting notability per WP:BLP1E. The content of this article can easily be folded into Charles Manson, or Manson Family#Investigation and trial. (Also note that we do not have articles on the other attorneys involved in the Manson defense team, not the judge or the court reporter or each of the jurors or any other non-public figures who happened to play a key role in this event). There's no attempt to even indicate that this person was notable. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable work. Good sourcing of third party and books television etc. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLAR after merging into the Manson articles mentioned by Michepman. Once that is so easily done, this AFD will be OBE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as the defense attorney for the notorious Charles Manson. Also notable According to Tate-LaBianca prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Wm335td (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, and notable for having been in major cases.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Spracklin[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable at this time. References one and three are both the same and just a passing mention and no in depth coverage. Reference two is a mention of a high school basketball game. Four is unreliable IMDB. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is an important american artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8280:3C00:89B2:9EB3:A33C:363A (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage, fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims need sources. When you are lauding a person in half for being a high school basketball player they are almost certainly not notable. If she did make "valuable contributions to the film industry" we need sourcing to show this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wp not selfpromotion. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be deleted, while a cult figure of lesser notoriety, evangiline “vange” spraklun is a well known internet personality as well as a valuable contributor to the film industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.177.87 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saiee Manjrekar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with one credit to her name. Although there are numerous articles that mention her at Google News, most of the recent ones are merely publicity events promoting Dabangg 3. I scoured through many of them, and they're mostly superficial socialite "she was seen out in a cute blue top" kind of stuff. Nobody is writing anything substantive about her yet, because she's a debutante actor, and nobody knows her work yet. And merely being the daughter of two notable actors doesn't automatically mean she's going to make it in the industry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP: NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP: NACTOR Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Couldn't find good quality sources either, so barring a major language impediment from my part she appears non-notable at this time. PK650 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Agree with nom. , Fails WP: NACTOR. Alex-h (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP: NACTOR A17NAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A17nan (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. She has received wide range of coverage however she has starred in one notable film (not including child actress). This can be recreated after she appears in other few notable projects in the future. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela (character)[edit]

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

Fictional character. The article contains no reliable sources that show notability. The show the character comes from is barely notable, the character clearly is not. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the character is clearly notable. It has been featured in almost all episodes of the show, the character has two apps, one which is successful, the other probably is too, they are one of the main characters. The show is extremely successful, it won a contest in 2016, which gave it start of it’s second season. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever is the article creator, and previously removed its speedy deletion nomination. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The show is (just about) notable, but that doesn't mean this character is notable. Please read WP:N. You need to provide multiple, independent, published sources that have in-depth coverage of this character. Note that none of the current sources count towards that, since they are not reliable sources and don't have in-depth coverage of this character. Having an app is not a measure of notability on Wikipedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - clearly not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with so many articles created by this somewhat problematic editor, sources do not seem to establish the subject's notability. Rob van vee 21:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in the slightest with laughable primary sourcing (a wiki, YouTube, etc). It's as if the article creator wasn't even trying here. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user has no understanding of our policies and should be prevented from creating articles until they prove themselves worthy of doing so. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asides the glaring non notability of the subject of our discussion, in my candid opinion this is not an encyclopedic material. Furthermore what’s with the rude comments above? You lot can make your points without being condescending. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it comes across as such Celestina007, especially if this is your first interaction with this editor but some of us have been on the extremely frustrating path of dealing with this person and their problematic edits (the creation of multiple poorly sourced, non-notable stubs) for several weeks already. A quick glance at their and my talk pages will give you some idea but I can assure you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Please forgive some of us for exuding said frustration on this AfD, myself included. Rob van vee 05:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every animated character ever is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many characters in the fictional universe to make this a valid redirect. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Redirect to Angela (given name). Has a list of "characters" under actual people. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced and non-notable. After deletion, this is worth recreating as a redirect to Angela (given name) per Hyperbolick. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. ——SN 54129 12:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There's an article for Talking Angela which has reliable sources. Toughpigs (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 20:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Chhabra[edit]

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

Non notable composer who fails WP:COMPOSER and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centered pentachoric number[edit]

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

No evidence that the term appears in the real world (other than in Wikipedia mirrors), or that the subject is notable. OEIS refers to it as "4-dimensional centered tetrahedral numbers", rather than "centered pentachoric numbers" or "centered pentatope numbers". OEIS is also not evidence of notability; absence from OEIS is evidence of absence of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on article talk. There's nothing in Google Scholar under this name, and is mentioned only in passing by value in https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814412551_0010. The OEIS listing gives a book reference for a general formula of which this is a special case and no interesting properties of the sequence, only more-or-less mechanical polynomial transformations. It's not one of the sequences labeled "nice" on OEIS. And we have no source at all for the title of the article. I don't think any of that adds up to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator: I do agree that this is not a notable concept. Suggest to merge this into figurate number and list it in a new section on that page (perhaps rename the section Triangular numbers there to something more general and list it there). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I see no need to merge the content, brief as it is, anywhere. (FWIW, I did a quick test by temporarily removing it from ((Figurate numbers)) and ((Classes of natural numbers)), and it looks like those account for all of the links to it.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Nothing really to merge to figurate number, that article looks like could be expanded, but adding only this would kind of a random piece of information - Nabla (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mentions except in Wikipedia mirrors. There are also two Google books sources that both give 404 errors. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Park Jae Woo[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence failing WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO as I can’t see him winning any notable award. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was previously an article about this same person at Park Jae-woo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I didn’t even catch that. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as junk (there is probably a WP term for this). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Provided citations do not establish notability. No prejudice against later recreating the article if additional sources are located. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of citations showing notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watford LLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and also WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I remarked in my AfC note, there is very little secondary sourcing available about the company, even in the form of passing mentions. It is not well known or acknowledged in its local area and the article does not make a clear case for notability. Sounder Bruce 04:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to include more secondary sourcing about the company and news articles about its notability. The company appears to hold one of the largest gold mining companies, which is why I wrote the article in the first place and I have added this fact to the article. I am still updating the article to include more as it does appear the company has over four years of notability, which does not contribute to WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstanceFutura2001 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Native advertising. Non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urs Wiesendanger[edit]

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

With just 9 mentions on Google News this person doesn't seem notable. Also the article is very promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments looks like the article is self-published. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Self-published promotional article that is basically a resume (and a badly-written one to boot). Poor sourcing and failed attempt at notability by namedropping a multitude of established artists. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now trimmed of promotion and puffery, only self-published sources remain.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article subject User:Urs Wiesendanger appears to be editing the page. For example in this recent edit they added multiple new images of the subject, and removed the AfD template. Not that it matters much for notability, but it does show promotional use.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale provided by Beemer69. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-published sources and previously written as self-promotion. Snowycats (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once the self-promotion is removed, there's nothing left. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. this edit yesterday by User:Urs Wiesendanger appears to be an attempt at CSD WP:G7 "Author requests deletion" but no reason was stated and the speedy was declined on that ground. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)-[reply]
Delete. There was no indication of meeting WP:GNG prior to the removal of the self-promotional content, and there certainly is not now. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard DiVizio[edit]

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

Known only for his involvement in several Mortal Kombat games back in the 1990s, and filmography otherwise consists of sporadic big-screen bit parts. Growing up as an MK fan I had an affinity for the actors from the series' now-obsolete digitization era, but nowadays like his brethren he lacks notability and viable third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if your biggest role is appearing in a video game you just are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from his video game roles, he has done very little film/TV work–in my opinion, fails WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Nag[edit]

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

Promotional tone; redlinks, non-links and poor sourcing lead me to suspect this is a non-notable musician. Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article was actually created by an SPA[1] who had nothing better to do here. A look into news sources tells that the little popularity the individual has gained is all because of their relationship with a notable person than something for their own. Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 08:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NorthSideBenji[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. Short bios in local music magazines. This was published in XXL, but it's pretty short. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No chart activity or work with a notable label. Article is fueled by primary sources like Apple Music and YouTube videos, with no outside coverage aside from promotional blurbs and one EP review. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for some reason I received a notification for this AfD instead of the initial editor. Notifying TwinTurbo. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who?? Non-notable person, sources are not independent of the subject either. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Manzo-Lewis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. I found three featured articles from a local newspaper in New Jersey ([2], [3], [4]) but not much else outside of routine transactions. Played professionally in the Alliance of American Football, but that is a minor league. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manzo-Lewis played for the Memphis Express of the Alliance of American Football, a fully professional (albeit short-lived) league that would appear to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON clause 1 (see this source) for game appearance details), even if it isn;t explicitly listed. It was not a minor or semi-professional league and is not explicitly excluded in clause 2. If the AAF does not meet clause 1, more clarification is needed in NATHLETE to exclude any players whose only professional experience is in the AAF. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this might not be the appropriate venue for this type of discussion, but here are a few sources indicating the AAF was a minor league: "The AAF Failed Because All Minor League Football Does", "AAF executives thought there was a 2-3 year plan to be an NFL minor league". The majority owner, one week before folding the league, said "If the [NFL] players union is not going to give us young players, we can't be a development league" ([5]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking substantial enough coverage to pass GNG. In January I tried to establish whether or not the AAF would fall under NGRIDIRON or not but nobody took part in the discussion and no other attempt at creating a consensus has been made since. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone who wants this to me to work on outside mainspace should drop me a line Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilburri Fahy[edit]

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

I confess that I'm not even sure whether this meets WP:GNG. It's such a mess I can barely follow it. I attempted an A7 tag, but it was declined, so I'll let the community decide. Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been following this article for a while, because I wasn't sure if it was turning into something, and wanted to give the contributors time to work on it. Though over time more information was added, most of it is WP:OFFTOPIC and would be more suitable on other pages. At no point in this article is WP:NOTABILITY actually established (the infobox says 'Only white man to fight with the mob during Black War', which does not establish notability, and is not referenced anywhere in the article). All the sources about the subject are newspaper clippings, primarily with mentions in passing, none are actually main sources about the subject, so not counting towards WP:SIGCOV, and in my opinion the article is bordering on WP:ORIGINAL. I think the subject does not require it's own page (per WP:NOPAGE), but rather the mentions in John O'Connell Bligh, Dundalli and maybe Dalla people would suffice. Achaea (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is his time living with an Aboriginal tribe an unusual occurrence (at that time) - I'm conscious that notability will be different for someone who lived at the time Australia was a convict colony than it was now, and we need to be careful. Btw, I don't buy your original research claim - this is a biographical article not something trying to put forward an argument. Bookscale (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know how unusual that is, but being unusual does not necessarily make it notable. I appreciate your note about historical notability, but I see no sources either at that time, or later looking back that describe the subject of the article in a way that meets WP:BASIC. Surely, if it would have been unusual to a level that it would be notable, other people would have written about it in secondary sources? I really don't see it passing any of the criteria in WP:NOTABILITY, but you're welcome to disagree. Achaea (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I don't know enough about the subject to categorically say one way or the other - I was merely asking the question. What I would say is that if there is notability it is likely to be established in sources that are not available online. I'm happy for this to be userfied to the talk page of the creating editor if that would allow the page to be maintained while further sources are found. Bookscale (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the World[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletation as far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians. Despite being ranked on significant music charts (despite this not being a main criteria), it hasn't won any significant awards. There are a couple of album reviews that do not establish notabilty. Futhermore, Pop Crush is an unreliable source, the RS article doesn't cover the song and Obama calling him a jackass is not relevant to this article. On top of that, I'm not sure Uproxx is a reliable source. The only relevant source for the article is the MTV one, and it take more than one source to consider the song to be notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning (song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletation as far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians. It has not ranked on national or significant music or sales charts (despite this not being a main criteria), and hasn't won any significant awards. There are a couple of album reviews that do not establish notabilty and Pusha T is an interested third party. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album) - Fails WP:NM. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album). RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The One (GOOD Music song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletation as far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians. It has not ranked on national or significant music or sales charts (despite this not being a main criteria), and hasn't won any significant awards. There are two album reviews and West's wife is an interested party. There is one notable source, not in the contextt of album review, and it takes more than that to meet the criteria. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album). I couldn't find any reviews of this song specifically, every mention was merely a smaller part of an album review. The article really doesn't have anything that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.34.130.42 (talk) [reply]

Unfortunately, I made that comment not realising I was not logged in. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat - lol I've been there. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album) - Fails WP:NM. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salmar[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional figure. This article has no references, not even primary ones, and I can't find any that would demonstrate SIGCOV or pass GNG. The other Maiar articles have been soft deleted and redirected to Maiar, so I would find that acceptable too. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This character is far too obscure to have an article of his own. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just crazy how minor of characters we have given articles to. If we were to give all characters who are mentioned at the level of Salmar articles, we would probably have 90% of our articles be on fictional characters. We would no longer have complaints about too many articles on footballer or porn starts, because we would only complain about articles on characters mentioned vaguely in just one work of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my prod rationale (fails GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JPL. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aegnor[edit]

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

Fictional character with no real-world notability and little in-universe notability. Only references appear to be in passing or primary sources, the PDF cited in the article only has one use of the word "aegnor" that my browser's search function can pick up. This article is the sort of article fan wikis exist for. Hog Farm (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to learn that it is not a Tolkien encyclopaedia. We should not have articles on characters who have never been discussed by academics or journalists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And yet another minor character out of the Similrillion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Susmuffin. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voronwë[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional figure in Tolkien's works. Has some hits on Google Scholar, but all appear to be passing references. All of the sourcing I can find is either unreliable, in passing, or primary sources (Tolkien works). Hog Farm (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voronwë is another in a long line of characters in Tolkien's legendarium who have only been discussed in passing. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations. Interested editors are open to merge more material via the page history. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy[edit]

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

This is an excessive list of in-universe minutia. This fails to establish notability for the grouping, and it is not a justified content split. Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations, though obviously needing to be properly sourced and rewritten, seems to summarize the content well enough without going too in-depth. I see little point in retaining anything in this article in its current state. TTN (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations (which should probably be renamed to Universe of Warhammer or Warhammer World). The dedicated article about the setting is pretty much sufficient to summarize, though perhaps subsections can be added since it's a wall of text right now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations, as there is really nothing to merge due to this article being all hyper-detailed fancruft. The article’s references do not pass WP:GNG, and I could not find reliable sources covering the subject. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations per above. Some merging can be done, if deemed necessary, but as there is nearly no information in this article that is sourced, and the small bits of information that are sourced are mostly using primary sources only, I'm not sure of the necessity of that. But, the history will be preserved after the Redirect if anyone wanted to take a shot at it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Simpson[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Coverage in references is about his band, not him as an individual. ... discospinster _talk 16:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Not notable for a standalone drummer of a band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet criteria of WP:NMUSIC.-Nahal^(T) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivo V2[edit]

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

What makes this product (phone) notable? I couldn't find any review in an outlet that seems reliable and not just blog advert or a rewritten press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Vivo V1 was covered pretty significantly, so I just figured it's successor should have a page as well. I dunno. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not seeing any significant coverage of the V2 model, but if you see it, please link it here and ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. I tried finding some sources myself but failed. But there seems to be a lot in different languages. If anybody finds a couple in different languages, I'll change my vote. Also, reviews of it might just be covered up by all the product sites selling it. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but we can't assume WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sources should be the start point of an article, not an eventual goal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any non-trivial or acceptable sources to establish notability for the device. Note that Vivo devices are largely absent in any English-speaking market I can think of (except for maybe India?) so English-language sources are likely to be few and far between. Given that the device is approaching 4 years old, I don't see that changing in the future. –Erakura^(talk) 01:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Looking again at the article, it mentions Verizon Wireless, a US carrier; I'm fairly knowledgeable regarding the US market phone industry and I'm not aware that VZW has ever carried or supported a Vivo product. So I also question the veracity of this article's content as-is. –Erakura^(talk) 01:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete,, and after a relist, further good RS was provided that was unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Rafi[edit]

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

Lack of reliability from the information provided here. Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I know nothing of the subject, but if it is true, this is an article on an important person. Since we are dealing with a distant period, so that the amount of information available may be modest. The current article does have sources, though it seems to rely too much on a single one, which is unsatisfactory, but not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical figure, . I can't read the sources given but there's an excellent English language source in Encyclopaedia Islamica: Bojnurdi, Kazem Musavi and Negahban, Farzin, “Abū Rāfiʿ”, in: Encyclopaedia Islamica, Editors-in-Chief: Wilferd Madelung and, Farhad Daftary. Consulted online on 27 December 2019 [6]. All it took to find this was Google. But there is another person of that name in the period, Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq (Arabic: أبو رافع بن أبي الحُقَيْق‎), one of Mohammed's enemies, so it is necessary to be careful. See: Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closing as speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1 - the nominator does not advance any argument for deletion or redirection, rather they propose a merge, and no one else recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Discussion about a merge can be taken forward on the article talk page per WP:MERGE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regress argument[edit]

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

Suggest merging with Munchhausen trilemma as these describe the same problem. 37KZ (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Many philosophers have considered this and I'm most familiar with Charles Dodgson's formulation. Anyway, there are many notable approaches to this and so it's not clear that merger is appropriate. And merger is not done by deletion so AfD is not an appropriate process. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as per User:Andrew Davidson. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quidem[edit]

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

A relatively recently (2009) established radio station owning/operating company. I can't see anything in the form of general news coverage, outside of the industry-specific press release rehashes. Article has been flagged for improvement for 5 years with little success. Time for it to go, fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO#5 (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Blue[edit]

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

The sources are from mostly non notable publications and a lot of the article is unsourced. Andise1 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment undecided for now. Two sources fulfill GNG requirements: [7], [8]. Many other sources like Atwood are non-professional and probably unreliable. However, nom's reasoning is flawed: WP:BLP states that deletion of largely unsourced articles is only the last resort, but there is no indication of this. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC) (this user was indefinitely blocked on 18 January 2020)[reply]
Keep The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", with two albums on Audiotree, as clearly stated in the article. The state of sourcing in an article is not a reason for deletion, per WP:NPOSSIBLE. As for sources, as well as the Chicago Tribune profile found by UnnamedUser [9], there are reviews in Substream Magazine [10], Third Coast Review [11], Hooligan Magazine [12], PopMatters [13], Audiofemme [14], and a couple of paras at the beginning of an interview in Vents Magazine [15]. They don't all have Wikipedia articles, but some of them do seem to have editorial overview. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above such as Chicago Tribune, PopMatters, Chicago Reader and others that show that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is not necessary in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has WP:SIGCOV meets WP:V and meets WP:MUSICBIO#5 Wm335td (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aram jafari[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Since it is a Persian article, it is basically found in Persian Wikipedia. Please search on google fa:آرام جعفری and i think get more source Persian language, According to Persian Wikipedia, she work multiple movie, i think she is probably notable something. So, i request to Relist-Nahal^(T) 00:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I check all of her Persian news source via translation, but i didn't find any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Maybe it's also WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relato K[edit]

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

The text is mainly original research (violates WP:NOR). Although most sections are correctly cited, the decision to include each issue doesn't rely on the sources but seems to be original research. Nubecosmica (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since it uses secondary sources, it's not technically original research. However, by stitching together random facts into a single article, it violates both WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. It also reads like so much of a conspiracy theory that at times it's hard to follow. This is not an endorsement of the subject matter nor of Kirchner's philosophy. Please ping me if you think you can convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PRESERVE This article may be sensitive as it deals with politics and propaganda but IMO it adds value to the topic. I think it should be renamed to something less biased (as relato in Spanish implies a fictional narrative), maybe something like Kirchnerite propaganda? MewMeowth (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists, there is no consensus to delete, however the keep case was also acknowledged to be thin (despite number of films); no prejudice to another relist at AfD if sourcing has not improved. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Rodnunsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NFILMMAKER. Cannot find any real SIGCOV. With 50 films, you would expect to find at least one newspaper review. Rogermx (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy - this is a B film director, so reviews in newspapers might be hard to come by. I don't have time to work on it now, but perhaps after Xmas. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source here is IMDb, which is not a reliablwe source at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's a profile of him as a dancer in the Los Angeles Times in 1985 [16]. Newspapers.com has almost 1900 results for "Serge Rodnunsky" - many of them are listings of his films Life After Sex, Lovers, Lovers and others, but there may be some reviews in among them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: He's mentioned in a few European articles, albeit only in passing. With some work and some sources, I don't see why this article should be deleted. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to everyone who has posted here, I still see very little proof of notability. If the guy has created 50 films, at least one of them should have created some buzz in the media. However, I do appreciate all your time and research on this. Rogermx (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh HaAinshtein/Einlonimus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Was tagged in September hoping for some sources, but none were provided. Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sport in Kenya#Athletics (track & field and running events). RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan runners[edit]

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

No real need for disambiguation; categories are not usually included as entries Leschnei (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category shouldn't be an entry, and I'm not convinced that the tribe that is claimed to be disproportionately good at running is a valid entry either. Hog Farm (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this page to help readers who were interested in the phenomenon of lots of runners from Kenya winning marathons. That seems to be disproportionately due to the Kalenjin, but that name is seldom mentioned in the press. I've just added an explanation to Sport in Kenya#Athletics (track & field and running events) so maybe it would be better to simply redirect there. -- Beland (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in no way a disambiguation page. The subject is covered in Race and sports#Endurance running. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, interesting. I've linked to that more detailed explanation from Sport in Kenya#Athletics (track & field and running events). -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Kenya#Athletics (track & field and running events). Disambiguation is not appropriate because "Kenyan runners" is not ambiguous, but it remains a plausible search term for the general topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is absolutely not how a dab page works -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Valeryevich Pavlov[edit]

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia. Possible PR/promo. Кронас (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially promotional and non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely a vanity page and probably an autobio or COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Suharev[edit]

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia. Possible PR/promo. Кронас (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Smits[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 12:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 3B Junior. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust Planet[edit]

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

Highly promotional and non-notable article about department of A&R company. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 3B Junior. The article claims to be a remake of the latter. ミラ P 01:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 3B Junior. The two groups are essentially the same except Stardust Planet is what they're going by now. Ideally, it would be better if the contents were merged to 3B Junior and the article was renamed Stardust Planet to keep article history. Also, Stardust Planet peaked at #2 on Oricon so they're definitely notable per WP:NMUSIC. lullabying (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 3B Junior. In this case WP:COMMONNAME could also apply given that the new name appears to be not as notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shepherd[edit]

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

Very limited game-time in a WP:FPL based league and looking at the references for his name shows mostly for the American football player and not the association football player. HawkAussie (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure of GNG more important than NFOOTBALL technical pass. I'm struggling to find anything about this person, let alone significant coverage. Giant Snowman 16:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet general notability criteria. He did make one league appearance for Morton in what was then the SFL First Division, and I assume counts as a fully professional league, as its successor, the SPFL Championship, does. However I do not think one appearance at this level justifies an article and his career at lower level does not seem to have included anything of outstanding notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Regional League[edit]

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

No source whatsoever, couldn't find a single reliable source on google. Therefore it is not notable (assuming that it existed). SharabSalam (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. 2604:2000:E010:1100:580F:1D87:8D13:5C7C (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 19:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of space launch system designs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly written article with excessive information, most of them fails WP:GNG. I suggest deletion of the article. A replacement of that article is in draft. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you have already rewritten the article you can just replace it, no need to delete the history. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rewritten version has different name. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Deletion is not cleanup. If you have improvements then make them, don't erase everything and then upload something else. As I said in the last AFD for this, "This sort of thing always gets ample coverage in reliable sources. Ample references are already in the article. Many of the things on the list even have their own articles." Dream Focus 11:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and encyclopedic. WP:ATD. The article could use and ambitious editor, but not deletion. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article archives the set of valuable information in the field. Deletion is pointless, rewrite and improved layout is required. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 02:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can go ahead and just put your version in the actual article, since it has much better formatting. But make sure to add sufficient sourcing though, as currently you have none. Just use the sources already present in the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can be a notable topic for a list. While AfD can be cleanup, deletion itself is not, especially when there is a new draft pending. While we technically could decide on a redirect to List of space launch vehicle designs if that went live, it's not. At this point, it's better to incorporate into the existing article and do a move outside AfD if it's truly warranted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete just to recreate, when a merger will work just as well and avoid losing history. If you don't want to do all the work yourself of merging the content and formatting of your draft with the content and references of the current article, maybe you could go to the current article and its talk page and propose there that your draft be merged in. And if the consensus turns out to be to not use your draft (for whatever reason) at least we'll still have the current article. – PointyOintment ❬💬•⌨❭ 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Arjes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:GNG with two press releases, a primary source and a wedding notice and several passing mentions of the subject. I also found https://www.riffmagazine.com/mp3/radio-roman-bad-blood-alison-mosshart-eric-arjes/, but that doesn't help. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Does not fail WP:GNG because of significant, non-trivial coverage in RIFF Magazine and SPIN as well as numerous articles mentioning him as a frequent collaborator with Maren Morris who co-wrote the first song she got cut. Updates include several reliable sources that are not just press releases. Also does not fail multiple criteria of WP:MUSICBIO in that the has released two albums on a major label, and been featured on several network television shows and compilation albums. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A passing mention in SPIN and Riff Magaine is not significant coverage. And no mention of the subject's albums on any label is made so, I don't buy it. Is this because you're the only major contributor to the article? I am assuming good faith, but I would like to be clear that this is not a WP:COI or WP:PAID issue before you continue to discuss or edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject's band release two EPs on Atlantic in 2009 and 2010, bit no solo works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not being paid, nor is this a COI. I have met the guy once at a writer's night, and have heard many people in the Nashville songwriting community talk about his work. I think he is more than a "passing mention" in those articles as they are about a song that features him as the co-artist. He is clearly an established songwriter/producer with significant credits under his name and not just from his band. I think you jumped to delete way too quickly, and I might not be the only contributor if you give the article a chance to exist. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the clarification. There is no significant coverage which is what is needed for GNG and again, the albums are not his own, they are his band's, and they're only EPs, not full-legth. I did WP:BEFORE and there's not enough to sustain an article so no, I did not jump to delete too quickly. If this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, then we can create an article with sources that show that the subject is notable. Until then, delete it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that there is no significant coverage. Two of the cited articles are about a song he is featured on not only as writer and producer, but also as co-performer with Mosshart. I also just added one from Billboard magazine that describes how a new song from Gone West "revolves around co-writer Eric Arjes’ buoyant guitar groove." I agree with you that the major label albums were with his band, but he has since been featured on several television shows and compilation albums as a solo performer, writer, and producer, which is where the focus of this article lies and proves him to be notable. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you do not have the same understanding of what WP:SIGCOV says about significant coverage. One paragraph is not significant coverage. Mentioning the subject's name is not significant coverage about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I have read through the notability guidelines several times, and I disagree with you. I stand by the article. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        But a few passing mentions of the subject in articles about the subject's bands, or other topics, don't help the subject meet any criteria. These is no significant coverage of the subject in the supplied sources, and I can find none online. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The two MusicRow articles on the article appear to be the only coverage this artist has received from a reliable secondary source beyond a passing mention. This is not enough to pass GNG. Cjhard (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeu Viero Filho[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this series of minor crimes justifies a biogrpahical article DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator I think that this article should be keep, as it is still a developing history. Recently, the police broke into Filho's apartment, so I think the case is serious enough and deserves a Wikipedia article. Also, neighbours writted on his door the words "Psycopath" etc, which also does make me think this case is not a minor crimes case. I'll wait for more discussion, so I can see what the consensus will be.--Cientific124 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No.sourcing has been provided Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ashley[edit]

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

I believe there was a Disney show called Gotcha Covered, of which she was the host, but the only evidence I can find is on her web sites. There's nothing else notable about her. I'd suggest redirecting to the page for the show, but we don't have one, and neither does IMDB.com or tv.com. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until there is solid evidence of notability. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates an actual passing of the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patricia Ashley was the lead actress in the 2017 movie 'A Demon Within'. --MichaelDalton (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Mitrovic (football scout)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG. FK Loznica was not in the top flight when he appeared for them. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly overbroad inclusion criteria for people connected with football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Anthony May[edit]

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not a notable subject. Only alleged claim of notability is the subject’s own publisher, a claim that is itself unsourced. (Where exactly did the publisher make this claim?) Article contains many unsourced claims with “citation needed” added by subsequent editors. About half of the article is simply a list of the books the subject has written, with no claim of the notability of said books. —- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glenn Anthony May

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have cited one review of each of the books listed. Plenty more such sources are available from searches such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, May's books are "well known" (reflected by number of holdings in libraries), and have been reviewed by multiple sources (each meet WP:NBOOK, and are wikinotable for their own standalone articles) ie.

Social Engineering in the Philippines (in around 300 libraries) - The American Historical Review (here), The Journal of Asian Studies (here), Pacific Historical Review (here), The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (here);

Sonny Montes and Mexican American activism in Oregon (140 libraries) - a 2012 Oregon Book Award finalist - Pacific Historical Review (here), Oregon Historical Quarterly (here), Western Historical Quarterly (listed here);

Inventing a Hero (99 libraries) - Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), The American Historical Review (here), CNN Philippines (here), Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints (here);

Battle for Batangas (480 libraries) - The Journal of Asian Studies (here), Pacific Affairs (here), Pacific Historical Review (here), The International History Review (here), The American Historical Review (here), Canadian Journal of History (here), American Studies (here), Asian Affairs (here);

A Past Recovered (65 libraries) - Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (here), Asian Studies Review (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If for no other reason than that his view of a Filipino national hero is controversial. I would however have preferred to see links to the books rather than to reviews of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not. Reviews are independent reliable sources. Links to the books themselves are marketing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for replying to this, David. I was wondering how to reply to such a bizarre suggestion from an experienced editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen M. Jimino[edit]

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

Non notable local political candidate / official. Completely unsourced and fails notability guidelines for politicians as well as the GNG. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A civil servant, state legislator and local political candidate - all commendable but not notable. Sources unavailable in article, and an online search shows limited coverage, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. Jimino is a non-notable local politician (former county executive and unsuccessful mayoral candidate). A quick Google search found nothing significant. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politcian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County executive is not an "inherently" notable political office that guarantees a place in Wikipedia — it can get a person in the door if a genuinely substantial and well-referenced article can be written about their political importance, but is not a role that confers automatic inclusion rights just because the person can be verified as existing. But with just a short biographical blurb that covers no significant political context, referenced only to her (deadlinked) "staff" profile on the county government's own self-published website about itself, this clears neither the sourcing nor substance tests it would have to clear to make her includable. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Atkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, can't find even one featured article on him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but a couple routine transactional reports and some routine college blogs on him. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Played four years for Louisville with 31 tackles in three years at linebacker and one rushing carry in a fourth season at fullback. An unremarkable college career, and my searches failed to turn up any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never played in a professional game, college career is rather unremarkable, and the coverage I could find is just routine information, like scouting and transaction notices. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played a professional game. Not anywhere near enough coverage of his college career to show notability that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donte Carey[edit]

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

Routine transactions coverage only, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never appeared in a professional game and thus fails WP:GRIDIRON. Searching for sources to establish notability only turned up the aforementioned routine transaction coverage and fails WP:GNG. -- SamCordes^talk 08:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches did not turn up any significant coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Also fails to qualify under WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kind of split opinion, but I find the delete arguments more convincing since the sources are not strong. Tone 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Shen[edit]

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

Model and supposed businessperson with a few appearances, including a Playboy cover, but lacking the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and no evidence of the large fanbase or innovative contributions required by WP:NMODEL. Full disclosure: there were several more sources before I stripped most of them out of the article, so I encourage you to assess the article as I found it. I think you will find, as I did, that these additional sources are largely interviews (not independent), mostly in questionable and/or self-published sources, or a photo gallery that adds nothing as a source. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Miter128 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A model featured on the cover of Playboy and FHM magazine, with a feature in Maximm is notable. She is an International Playboy model Additional covers. Bsquared Magazine Passes WP:NMODEL Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.. In addition, I consider it poor form to fillet the article by deleting 5 of the 7 sources and then say it does not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of an AfD is for the participants to decide. We already know what the AfD nominator thinks and diminishing the content is poor form. I can add reliable sources to the article if the nominator can agree not to strip them out based on their preference for deletion. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm awfully sorry that you consider it 'poor form'. However, I started working on removing the clearly non-reliable sources before eventually accepting that the article was better off going to AFD. Reverting all of my changes first seemed a little unnecessary. I knew someone would object, which is why I explicitly called it out in my nomination statement, included a link to a version of the article before I had touched it, and added a brief explanation of what I objected to in those sources. Knowing Wikipedia, I should have known that someone would still manage to get upset, but I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it. Hug^syrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medium.com is used as a reference in 862 Wikipedia articles. [17] They gave her significant coverage [18] and said she had a notable following of 400,000 followers on Instagram. Is there high for famous people? Does it count as a large cult following? She had ample coverage in FHM [19] She meets WP:NMODEL. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Magazine covers would be considered "other production". She did have a significant role in these notable publications. Askmen is used in 174 Wikipedia articles.[20] That seems like a reliable source giving her significant coverage as well. [21] So the WP:GNG seem to have been met as well. Dream Focus 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus: While I endorse the WP:NMODEL argument, WP:RSP states that Medium is a self-published source [and] should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. ミラ P 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me to be stretching the definition of WP:NMODEL almost to breaking point to suggest that a magazine cover is equivalent to a film, tv show or stage performance, or that it is what is meant by 'other productions'. The other examples in this criteria are all the subject of reviews, criticism and sometimes books or academic study, much of which is sustained long after the work is complete. Magazine covers are essentially throwaway items that are very rarely the subject of any secondary coverage at all, and using them to establish notability simply because they fit a technical definition of 'productions' is, honestly, absurd. Hug^syrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, you link to Medium and say "They" give her significant coverage. Who are "they"? Not Medium.com, surely. And are "they" a reliable source that confers notability? Anyone could log into Medium dot com and give their cat "significant coverage". ApLundell (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Also see my comment above. ミラ P 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources are added to the article, magzter.com, brobible.com and voyagela.com. These sources are used in many Wikipedia articles. Sambroanna (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being used in many articles does not make them reliable/independant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. Brobible is not in-depth. Magzter, FHM, Askmen, and VoyageLA are all interview transcriptions, and thus not independent. Medium.com is not an RS; it's red on WP:RSP. – Levivich 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 00:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ She has been featured for Playboy Romania in March 2016.(Redacted) Playboy it's green on WP:RSP Sambroanna (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sambroanna: That's for the articles and interviews, says nothing about modeling. Also, ever read WP:LINKVIO? ミラ P 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only logical choice here; simply redirect to the month she represented in Playboy. Other than that she is not expressly notable—be honest. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored.Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. As Levivich mentions above, the remaining sources are not indepth/are interviews and thus not independant (not that brobible for one seems particularly reliable regardless). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wildsmith[edit]

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

Cannot find sources that provide more than just passing mention of the subject. Awards are local, not national. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my WP:BEFORE does not turn up any reliable sources to establish notability. Wm335td (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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