< 26 December	28 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) 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth objects[edit]

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

This is just another indiscriminate list of Tolkien trivia. (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) This includes everything from Gandalf's letter and the keys to Bag End, and a comprehensive list of every musical instrument played. There are relatively few citations, and most of them are to primary sources. Many of the objects are only mentioned once, so their part in the story can be documented in a plot summary; it doesn't need to be duplicated here. Jack Upland (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is an indiscriminate collection of fictional baubles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smh. Either that or merge and redirect to List of fictional thingamabobs, doodads and doohickeys, a sublist of List of objectionable objects. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better material for a Tolkien Wiki than for here.TH1980 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate list. It also has in the past functioned as a way to avoid deleting articles that really should be deleted, which leads to some of these entries being way too long (such as the Arkenstone).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. This is an indiscriminate list of material Alex-h (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list of fancruft posing as content. Jiminy Christmas, this is not an LOTR wiki. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete WP:SNOW Delete Wm335td (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SIMCom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Appears to be a subsidiary company, but the parent company doesn't even have an article (otherwise I would have simply redirected). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent sourcing - I couldn't find much coverage outside of press releases or rote quarterly reporting.Citing (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find non-trivial sources for the company to establish notability. Existing article references are either trivial or the company's own website. –Erakura^(talk) 19:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH Wm335td (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There are just two chart positions and self-promoting interviews. It takes more than that to meet the criteria. This shouldn't have been created in the first place. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was already kept here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever & Always. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True but the notabilty key fatcors changed and no longer meets them as charting is not a factor for an article to be relevant. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the consensus at the prior AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to read WP:NM again, charts indicate that a song might be notable, not that is notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been editing in the music content area for over a decade, I’m well aware of the guideline. (Not that it matters, as I didn’t even invoke it to begin with??) It’s a platinum selling song. More than one million copies sold in a single country. It’s preposterous to suggest a song of that sort of caliber isnt going to have a handful of sources about it in existence. That’s one of the very reasons why we create notability indicators - so people dont waste the community’s time with these sorts of nominations just because they came up with nothing in a simple Google search. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, you evoked that as your vote is due to the last AFD nomination and the argument used was regarding chart positions. So what if its platinum? Yes, "notability indicators" having charted or the song being platinum is not one. Well, prove me wrong, show me the sources in existance that suggest it deserves being a standalone article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Songs don’t sell a million copies and fly under the radar of music journalists. Even if you aren’t knowledgeable of the modern music industry, common sense should tell you that much. Sergecross73 msg me 04:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if they fly under the radar of music journalists why should it have an article? It has to be notable, something this is not "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." If you believe this is notable please provide sources. Being platinum and charting are not indicators. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s like you got every part of that response wrong (including proper indentation.) My point is that is that charting and sales of this capacity would make it virtually impossible to fly under the radar. Music doesn’t get get that much mainstream exposure and then not get third party coverage. That’s why we have common sense indicators. Whether your BEFORE Google search was successful or not (or even happened?) I assure you that a handful of professional writers across multiple countries wrote about the song. Proposing otherwise strains the limits of credulity. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. First of all, there is no mention in any articles besides a couple of album reviews, and well nowadays any song from a notable artist can chart. Secondly, music has been getting a lot of exposere, it's not 2004 anymore...mainly from an artist with the caliber of Taylor Swift. It did happen, you just don't want to search or you did and find no sources, because if you say its true, just provide sources for it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability asserted as a charted song with platinum sales, no valid rationale for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither estabilish notability. Please read WP:NM. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD, which pointed out several sources which are not in the article but still contribute to notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:DELAFD no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD. Most of what Miss Swift writes is notable. Wm335td (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a fan's point of view, it must be. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I see what they’ve done to warrant casting such an aspersion, but I suppose making bad calls hasn’t stopped you from badgering people so far, so why should it now. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very speedy keep Deleting a Taylor Swift song? This is one of the most notable musicians on Wikipedia, and most of her songs are notable enough. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it charted low, it seems to have enough general coverage to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Balrog#Gothmog. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gothmog (The First Age)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Fails WP:GNG due to only mentions in RS being in passing. An article about this character under the name Gothmog was merged into Balrog in 2008, so this article can just be deleted/soft delete and redirect since the content is already at Balrog thanks to that merge in '08. Hog Farm (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balrog#Gothmog While Gothmog may be notable from an in-universe perspective, he is not from ours. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balrog per nom. A minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balrog, if The Fall of Gondolin had ever been reworked in to a truly book length work with a truly developed plot, it might be otherwise, but contrary to what some believe we can not treat Tolkien's work on the level of mythology and assume mention there creates notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 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. Nomination withdrawn late in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There is just a bunch of charts and album reviews stick together and it takes more than that to meet the criteria, there isn't a single piece talking about this song only. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweetener (album). The song does not appear to have received enough coverage for an independent article, but a redirect would be beneficial for anyone trying to find information about it on here. Since a viable redirect target already exists, I think that would be a better option than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a few references to the article. In particular, this Spin review of the song represents non-trivial coverage about the song, and there are other -- albeit less hefty -- pieces whose sole subject is the song at Vulture and Billboard, for example. These sources, along with the chart placements, satisfy WP:NSONG in my view by providing enough material for "a reasonably detailed article". gongshow talk 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and NM per gongshow's sources. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Gongshow. The billboard seems trivial, but the other two more than fine. Withdrawal. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:26, 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) 23:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohtar[edit]

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

Non-notable figure in works of Tolkien. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. My BEFORE turned up a bunch of information from fan sites and some information about a band of the same name, which incidentally was also from unreliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ohtar is another Tolkienian character who is only notable from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think Ohtar is notable from any perspective. The only thing we know about him is that he carried the broken sword to Rivendell. This information comes from a fragment that was published after Tolkien's death [and a brief mention in The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings]. This answers a question no one asked.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, this would be better material for a Tolkien Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is just not there. He is not significant enough to the story to show up in LotR, and the stories he does show up in were not every worked to a place where they were really ready for publication. Until he shows up in LotR TV, he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character. not everything by Tolkien is notable. Wm335td (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is That Alright?[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There is one source covering the track and nothing else, the rest is derivative from album reviews and it takes more than that to meet the criteria. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree most of the press mentions relate to the album, but my Google and Google News searching suggest the current composition and critical reception sections could be expanded a bit more. Additionally, the song has charted in 10 or so countries. I'd rather see the current page expanded, starting with the links I've posted to the talk page, and credits/personnel section added. I've shared URLs to several lists ranking the song alongside album counterparts and within Gaga's entire repertoire. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such links weren't there before, henceforth the nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan, You should not be nominating article for deletion just because they are stubs or not fully fleshed out. All secondary coverage should be taken into consideration before nominating. I strongly suggest completing online searches for possible sourcing before nominating articles for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That song has been stale since people created the article, doesn't seemed like anyone was going to polish the article furthermore. Not all secondary coverage, it has to pass certain criteria. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:54, 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 redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack). RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyes (Bradley Cooper song)[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There are two album reviews and no other sources that establish its notability and it takes more than that to meet the criteria. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree it does not meet WP:NMUSIC - a factoid about a Willie Nelson concert and middling chart success does not a notable song make. eeveeman (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack)|. I agree that this song does not appear to have enough coverage in third-party, reliable sources for an independent article, but I could see this being a viable search term and since a redirect target does exist, I think that would be more beneficial than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack)|, the song is not notable to stand alone. Alex-h (talk) 13:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Schliesing[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY by playing two times in the German 3rd Division, I found minimal references for this player which fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - struggling to find any sources to meet GNG, which is more important than 2 appearances to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,He played for third Div. in 2013, not notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netanel Chuna[edit]

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

Subject of article is a rapper but fails WP:SINGER, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails BASIC and any other known notability policy for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one weak source of vital information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO for a non notable rapper. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nondescript rapper who fails WP:GNG. Article is unashamedly based purely on personal opinion with no sourcing and reads like an obituary. If he was "well loved" as it states, we'd know considerably more about him, but nope. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:BLP and WP:OR. No sources in English, and it's very likely a well-meaning fan created this. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Thacker[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. She is an actress but fails WP: NACTOR. Also fails WP:ANYBIO as no notable award has been won so far. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not notable. Coderzombie (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gensel[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. jps (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I don’t see GNG being satisfied here.Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV whatsoever. I see only trivial mentions in lists and self-generated items. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Falls short of the GNG or the now-deprecated WP:PORNBIO, let alone WP:NBIO. Michepman (talk) 07:07, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Dahiya[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 falls short of WP:GNG. He is an actor but fails WP:NACTOR. I also do not see him scaling WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. fails WP:NACTOR Coderzombie (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right at the very beginning of their career. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 20:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails both general notability criteria, and notability criteria for actors; and WP:TOOSOON is applicable. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's Clearly fails notability. fails WP:GNG also WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 17:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it was created by UPE wouldn't by itself justify deletion, but subject clearly fails notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, this is an unknown model, without any big titles or endorsements. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not an actor so little weight given to the NACTOR !vote but sufficient consensus otherwise for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Woolf[edit]

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

I cannot see how this particular person passes WP:NBIO. jps (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he's not an actor, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He works in film, but coverage in media is paltry.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is terrible, and since producers and other such behind-the-scenes film staff are run of the mill, I don't see how he would be notable, lacking a major award such as BAFTA or an Oscar. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True Bromance[edit]

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

Another failed WP:NFILM by Sebastian Doggart. See the related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Doggart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courting Condi, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi jps (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weal delete at this time, a telegraph review might have been enough to push me towards weak keep, but as it is badly formatted I cannot verify what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any non-trivial independent sourcing/reviews. Maybe redirect to the director's page.Citing (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The participants in the discussion believe his role in church governance and the multiple reviews of his writings are sufficient to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Kuhrt[edit]

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

This was created as a stub years ago and apparently abandoned by the page creator who has created thousands of new pages based, apparently, on the fact that the person is in Who's who by virtue of being an archdeacon. Archdeacons are not notable for Wikipedia by virtue of their office, but may be notable for some other reason. I know the subject of this page, and have attempted to provide some justification for his notability based on his publications, and I added the Bibliography yesterday, but reading the notability guideline for authors, I do not think his publications are very well known or much quoted. I am not convinced that he is sufficiently notable for an article. I will be glad if people disagree - but wanted to test this issue before investing more time into filling out the biography. Sirfurboy (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Thomas (priest)Bashereyre (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. No significant coverage can be found in the article nor in a search that shows notability. The subject once wrote an opinion piece for the Church Times and was quoted by the BBC about a firefighter's death and the effects on the community - both of which I would imagine fall under the duties of a typical minister of faith. No wide coverage. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As director of ministry for the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, he is quoted in quite a few articles in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Sunday Telegraph, certainly more than an ordinary archdeacon would be. He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars in the second half of the 20th century, and his book An Introduction to Christian Ministry discussed, in Priesthood in a New Millennium: Toward an Understanding of Anglican Presbyterate in the Twenty-First Century [1]. There is a review of his book Life’s Not Always Easy (not in the article yet) in Fulcrum [2], and the views presented in his book An Introduction to Christian Ministry are criticised in an article 'Beware the bureaucrats' in the Church Times [3], though it is Indicative Reading in a Master of Theology in Chaplaincy Studies at Cardiff University [4]. The book Paul on Baptism: Theology, Mission and Ministry in Context gives his book Believing In Baptism in Suggested Reading, as a "useful popular book ... widely respected and valued" [5], and there's a review of that book in Churchman [6] (p 380), and the editorial in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (Spring 1989) is almost a review of it, certainly discusses it and recommends his approach [7], and this issue of the journal has an actual review of it (p 58) [8]. I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, with reviews/discussions of 3 of his books, and is close to meeting WP:RELPEOPLE#4 "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing." RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rebecca. I have some reading to do. As this is nearing a week, could I ask an admin to roll over for another week for fuller discussion of this additional material. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Could you also just clarify: "He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars in the second half of the 20th century." Considered as what? Leading Anglican Evangelicalscholar? Something else? And by whom? This could satisfy notability on its own if verifiable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, the book Priesthood in a New Millennium, which discusses him as an English evangelical scholar, is viewable on Google Books, for me - are you able to read it? The link I added above should take you to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen Thank you again. I have now reviewed the material you have found. I think I misunderstood "He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars..." as asserting more than it does, and yet he is indeed listed alongside three major evangelical scholars in Priesthood in a New Millennium. Not the most well known of books itself, it is nevertheless not a vanity piece and this is, I agree, sufficient evidence of WP:NAUTHOR, when considered alongside the other material. I note AuthorAuthor's remarks on some of the other sources, and I am not myself convinced that he definitely meets WP:RELPEOPLE#4 but this is good evidence that he may. Nevertheless, he only need be notable in one area, and on the basis that he meets WP:NAUTHOR, I am happy to change my own position to Keep. As soon as I have time, I intend to flesh out the bibliography and link it as appropriate. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The review of Life's Not Always Easy is by Fulcrum, described on its site as "a network of evangelical Anglicans." That is, unfortunately, not a book review by third-party reliable reviewer in a newspaper, periodical or magazine. The Church of England Newspaper included something about the book, but it is written by the subject and cannot be used as a source. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDEPENDENT says "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Fulcrum has a team of 13 people, not including this person [9]. The other journals I mentioned are also evangelical Christian sources. That does not mean they are not independent of this person - for any specialised area of study, it's journals dedicated to that specialism that will provide reviews of works in that area. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rebecca Green. Satisfies GNG. As a member of the General Synod of the Church of England from 1986 to 1996 he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, because the General Synod is a national legislature (its Measures are sometimes considered to be primary legislation: see eg Human Rights Act 1998, s 21(1)). The article in A & C Black's Who's Who satisfies criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO, it being a leading national biographical dictionary confined to notable people. James500 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Rebecca Green is a thorough editor. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, published a lot.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500 - "a member of the General Synod of the Church of England" is more than special. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth was a keep in 2012. Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Booth_(priest) ended as a keep in 2012 due to coverage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron was also a snow keep in 2018. I don't see that consensus has changed that quickly to reconsider these kinds of articles. I'll review the others, time permitting. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge was snow-kept because of the quality of book sources found in 2017. Meanwhile Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael was deleted in 2016 but re-created and worked on extensively since then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury was a speedy keep in 2012. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham was kept in 2012 due to lack of a policy reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove was merged in 2018, for want of sourcing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle was likewise deleted in 2018, pending anyone bold enough to redirect Joseph Verschoyle, which I did redirect it to Archdeacon of Achonry just now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest) was deleted and redirected to Archdeacon of Waterford. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold was nominated in 2018, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Thomas (priest) in 2019, both noms by the trusted DGG, but without consensus, they were kept. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi[edit]

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

Another non-notable film from the sockfarm that is propping up articles related to Sebastian Doggart. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Bromance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Doggart, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courting Condi. jps (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a lot of sourcing but the ones I have checked all seem to be about things other than the film. There is thus a distinct vibe of over citing. Far too much detail that looks like an attempt to bludgeon the reader into thinking this is more notable than it is. I would need to see some actual coverage of the film.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 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. Tone 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samnabad College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale given by Störm. No significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t qualify per GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 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. Tone 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Rafah-e-Aam High School, Multan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 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. Tone 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GM College Faisalabad[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot keep articles just with an organizational website. Wikipedia is not a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 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. Tone 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab International Public High School[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT - this stub makes no sense and has no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webaholic[edit]

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

Nothing more than extended vanity spam from Sourav Saha. Searching webaholic gives exactly 0 sources which have independent coverage and I see no claims of notability either at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No credible claim of notability, and the only relevant news article(out of 8 in total) for the word "Webaholic", is from a site affiliated to the company. The article creator has also created articles about the founder, the second owner as well, both of whom seem to be non-notable themselves, could be a case of WP:UPE Daiyusha (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is a puff piece with puff piece sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 04:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Native advertising with a brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. A redirect to Internet addiction disorder could be made. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neurovisceral Exhumation[edit]

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

Neurovisceral Exhumation is a Brazilian goregrind band. Even though they had multiple albums, I did not found any source that discusses the band's history, only databases that can be edited by anyone. (https://www.google.com/search?q=neuro+visceral+exhumation&oq=neurovisceral+exhum&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i60j0j69i60l2.7310j0j4&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) This is the main problem with articles about goregrind bands: they are only listed in websites that can be edited by anyone, because this style is considered to be underground. There are some goregrind bands that have reliable sources, but I did not find anything for Neurovisceral Exhumation, only databases (such as Encyclopaedia Metallum, Discogs, Rate Your Music) and sites that you can buy shirts with the band's logo or album cover on it or their albums. But no history or anything. I don't think they are notable for Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @GhostDestroyer100: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall:: Ok, I try to. These three pages were my first deletion nominations so I did not know everything. I think that I won't even do this again in the future.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe I voted on this the last time it was proposed, and my stance is the same; I agree there isn't enough verifiable sources to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. KailuaKid (talk) 21:57, 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. Tone 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bismark Salifu[edit]

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

Non-notable musician likely created by a sock under this name to avoid scrutiny/salt at Bizzy Salifu Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:MUSICBIO - nominated for a non-notable award, for which he didn't win. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infragistics[edit]

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

References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the supplied sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in particular would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about ORGCRIT, so mu. GNG, on the other hand, states if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", and it has a lot of sources that give sufficient weight to the existence of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you wrote GNG, but ORGCRIT says in particular "the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Companies have been given higher standards, including with the strengthening of WP:NCORP a few years back. So while the company may be mentioned in many articles, these are brief mentions, general announcements, and references closely associated with the company (such as press releases) which would not satisfy the guideline in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful. It's not an issue though because if a subject meets the general notability guideline, every other guideline is moot. You understand that, right? And while they're brief mentions, there are a sufficient number of them that we have an over significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Civil much? If you don't like my opinion I understand but stick to content. I'd expect better from an experienced editor but maybe not. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I made no commentary on you, but I did ask you a question. The issue at hand is whether one notability criteria is enough or if your preferred criteria must be met. Someone below claims it does not meet GNG, that's better than claiming that ORGCRIT must be met and GNG is not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of my comment is that if ORGCRIT is not met then GNG is not met, former being the measure of the latter. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. GNG is the generic guideline but many subject topics have specific guidelines to provide additional explanations/context in applying the GNG guidelines. For example, the guidelines for topics/organizations is WP:NCORP. It is *impossible* for an article to somehow pass GNG and to then fail NCORP - this is usually because of an incorrect/incomplete application/understanding of the relevant guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't find GNG met by barely more than mentions in pretty low-level sources. Some feel like churnalism. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment on WP:ORGCRIT discussion above. Seems to be a welcome refinement to WP:GNG. Don't want spam pushed in by passing a false veneer of meeting GNG. ORGCRIT requires deeper examination. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out above in relation to notability, GNG states that a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is deemed notable. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage (same as GNG) with in-depth information on the company (not just a brief description or mention) and (this next bit is really important!) containing "Independent Content". This is where NCORP clarifies what is required for coverage to be deemed "independent of the subject". As defined by WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the sources in the article itself, most are mentions-in-passing that contain no information whatsoever on the company. For example, The four articles from i-programmer.info contain no information on the company, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Similarly, the articles from Visual Studio Magazine, Redmond Developer, from Dr.Dobbs and for the 2008 Virtualization Conference and Expo all fail for the same reasons. The articles from SD Times, The Register, ADTMag, RCP Mag and Sentinel are based on company announcements and/or rely entirely on information provided by the company or connected sources, fail WP:ORGIND. Finally, the inclusion in the "Ultimate e-Commerce Resource Portal" appears to be reliant entirely on information provided by the company - certainly there is no mention of an attributed independent author and the language is peppered with peacock terms which also reappear (e.g. same company description) in other articles/places. All in all, I am unable to locate any articles that meet the criteria, therefore topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishalgoswami[edit]

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

Neither Vishalgoswami or Vishal Goswami appear to be notable. Also worth noting this has been created under other titles such as Vishal Goswami (VG) Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD#A7 (person). No relevant hits anywhere, only mentions are of different Vishal Goswamis across India. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability and the article is borderline nonsense.Citing (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL; and possibly salt them all, as a re-created non-notable BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School#Music program. In the case of a merge, the redirect would be to preserve attribution history for the merged material. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanicsburg High School Marching Band[edit]

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

no coverage outside local area. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School. Not deserving a full article but perhaps a bit on the high school page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the High School page, as not independently notable but worth a section there with local reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to merge some of the content go ahead but even with the low cost of redirects, I don't think, following a successful merge, that this redirect satisfies policy and as such I don't think it's an appropriate WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school bands are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School#Music program. It seems like a perfectly obvious and plausible WP:ATD and I honestly don't understand the comment above that such a redirect would not satisfy policy given that policy essentially only requires the incredibly low standard of 'it might be useful', and for it not to meet any of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE, which as far as I can see this would not. Barkeep49, can you expand on why this redirect would not satisfy policy? Hug^syrup 15:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough question. I am normally a "Redirects are so low cost why worry about them" sort of guy. And I am aware of the perils of Wikipedia:Merge and delete. However in this case our name "Mechanicsburg High School" is different than the name of our article "Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School". And further in the wisdom of WP:OTHERSTUFF "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability" I think applying the opposite here is important. High School bands are only going to be notable in extraordinary circumstances. School related articles are a perpetual battleground on Wikipedia. I would prefer we not open a new front. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and additional detail. As I see it, you're making two arguments: 1) the school names are inconsistent, but that seems a poor reason to avoid redirection since the Mechanicsburg High School Marching Band article makes it clear in the first line that it is referring to the band at Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School, and the whole purpose of a redirect is to helpfully capture commonly used names and search terms, which surely Mechanicsburg High School Marching Band is. And 2) I'm not sure I quite understand the point about WP:OTHERSTUFF but essentially you seem to be arguing that high school bands are almost never notable and we should not open the door to notability for them. If that is your argument, I entirely agree and I fully support this not existing as a standalone article, but of course notability is not required for a redirect, so this seems a little beside the point. Hug^syrup 16:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as HS bands go, it appears to be good enough to be in regional contests - and has some coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist International[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that fails WP:CORP. Article is purely promotional with only primary citations (tagged for such since September 2008) from the company website, and the majority of content has come from associated editors with no attempt to establish an encyclopedic tone. One would think there would be more legitimate third-party coverage for a sizable organization such as this, yet nothing was found save for a single LA Times article from 1987. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep Sourcing this does seem to be the issue, not notability. The Optimists get lots of hits, especially if one searches for the more common name of "optimists club", but it is hard to get past all the hits on individual clubs. Apparently if you haven't had a big scandal you can go for a century while getting minimal coverage, but it appears that the organization itself is really the only source of any detailed info on its history. I did manage to find this story on their public speaking contest, and there's surely more out there; at the moment I cannot devote more time to it. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether it ranks in Google, nor whether it's a good article. It's old and big enough to have sources in printed media. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for clean-up. Well-known enough and sources can be found online and in books. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It Comes in Waves (band)[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:NBAND. Also written in a promotional tone. ... discospinster _talk 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page definitely meets the criteria of WP:NBAND as the band has been mentioned in multiple, non-trivial, published works that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. The band has been featured in ^[1], as well as ^[2]. Both being major press release outlets and not published by anyone in the band. Robertegrounds (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete seems to be WP:TOOSOON with only two uncharted singles released so far, if their EP gets significant coverage and/or charts then would be the time for the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M S Faizalkhan[edit]

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

Promotional, poorly sourced article, which fails WP:BLP JMHamo (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. A very eminent and promising personality like him who is the youngest Keralite to represent India as an Official Speaker at UN General Assembly.Vediad (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a promotional article and not really the focal subject most of the article's sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT due to WP:NPOV issues. Also per GPL93. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not significant or deep. The article also far too soon yet because other than one speech, he hasn't done anything notable in his life. See also WP:UPANDCOMING. 18:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Ksenevich[edit]

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

I'm not sure what's notable about this person or what's reliable about the sources. If this person is notable, then it would still be easier to delete this version and start from scratch. Deprodded per "SOFIXIT". Perhaps the deprodder would like to fix it during the course of this AfD? —S Marshall T/C 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the most unencyclopedic article I've ever seen on WP. A great example of WP:NOTBLOG. If they do turn out to be indeed notable, I think this is a case of WP:TNT for sure. Netherzone (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional. All that's missing is paid admission to view the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) delete per all. Wouldn't WP:G11 apply here? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, and it also fits the criteria for CSD#X2, but it was deprodded, so someone thinks it's worth keeping. In the circumstances I felt AfD was the safest course.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is an x-pile, where x rhymes with fit, bit and wit. Unrecoverable promotional garbage. Impossible to assess notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been deleted twice on ru wiki; also per PROMO, GNG, and TNT. Theredproject (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNotButtigieg (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Vasilenko[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. Deleted there before as PR/promo. Кронас (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, obviously promotional biography. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Evans (percussionist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN with no third-party coverage. Article practically copied from an interview on Facebook, which is a nonviable source. The creator has since been permanently blocked due to repeated incidents of copyright infringement. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up nothing more. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:09, 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. Per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raanjhana[edit]

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

Standalone song. Fails WP:NSONG. Article written by sockpuppet of Vc4137, who is likely engaging in undisclosed paid editing. No indication in article that the song charted anywhere. Claims to have been the "top trending song on YouTube", but the reference provided doesn't even make that assertion, as if it mattered. The only reason why I haven't speedied this for block evasion is that another user fleshed out some of the video description. Why we need someone to describe the video is unclear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of races and species in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

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

List of in-universe minutia. Babel fish would likely be the only thing that needs any actual mention, but a redirect can just be shifted elsewhere rather than need to merge anything. Notability isn't established for the group, and this is not a necessary split from the man article. TTN (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and fails WP:LISTN. Wikia cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or as the dolphins would say, "So long and no thanks for all the entries." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12 copyvio. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Music Award[edit]

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

no evidence that this is a notable award - I can find absolutely no coverage of it. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:54, 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. Tone 08:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Catholic University Federation[edit]

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

I could not find any refs that showed that it passed notability. Anything i saw were just passing refs. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement. It has been tagged as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbiker Nikhil[edit]

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

non-notable youtuber/vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablility is not established, fails WP:GOLDEN RULE Accesscrawl (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2.9 million youtube subscribers. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 11:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails general notability criteria as there is significant coverage. Subject also fails notability criteria for creativ people. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

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

List of fictional in-universe minutia. The series does have quite the long lasting cultural impact, but this list as a whole doesn't provide any context that can't simply be addressed where needed in plot summaries. I do not believe the majority of topics listed here are necessary to cover, and I don't believe the grouping as a whole establishes notability. There's nothing particularly worthwhile in terms of existing content, so I see no benefit in merging unless it turns out there's a particular item that establishes notability on its own (but not for the group). TTN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of some of the sources stuff out of Towel, rest is excessive detail. Some terms may need redirects as valid search terms. --Masem (t) 15:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To paraphrase User:Clarityfiend, "So long and no thanks for all the lists." Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure crufty list, that fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jorkens[edit]

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

This article is a shameful collection of original research and plot-related information. It has relied on a single reliable source for over 12 years. Nothing else seems to exist. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to "bold case" vote but I will comment that the above comment is way out of order, and suggests that this person, who one understands nominated this article for deletion, did not do their homework. There is a lot of material on Jorkens, after 93 years. And I see that 1-2 reliable sources are enough to sustain many articles. I'm happy to help with improvements. 86.44.6.212 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article obviously has referencing problems but it is shameful not to follow WP:BEFORE and attempt to raise issues by tagging or raised on talk page. There is one WP:RS noted by the nominator ... I see two on the article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is a random blog post. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is based entirely on original research and is written like an essay. The subject himself has no individual third-party coverage outside of primary book-related sites and Blogspot is not a viable source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, the article, except for one part, relies heavily on sources, not this "original research." The assertion of "No third-party coverage" is absurd, given newspaper and magazine coverage, and critical essays. Lazy pushing for deletion of articles from an encyclopedia seems a terrible waste of the efforts of article contributors. 86.44.6.212 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article now has three sources and a couple of citations. More citations could be added using the book chapters by Joshi (2005) and Michell (2013), of which most text is available on Google Books - either to support more of the current text, or as the basis for a rewritten article. Ffranc (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samhain (2017) in further reading can converted into a source if necessary. The first page is available on preview on the jstor link. The remaining pages can be accessed by the jstor login (I believe a free subscription of 6 articles/month is currently available for jstor).Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC) (Ok: some may or may not argue not argue Schweizer (2018) and Samhain (2017) are both in "The green book" for WP:RS !counting.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable fictional character, well known in SF / Fantasy circles. Just needs inline references. 91.193.176.225 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC) — 91.193.176.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - passes GNG easily. What other reasons? Not OR, the article text draws on real external texts and at least one Dunsanian website, so why not just tag Improve Refs? Darrell Schweitzer is almost as respected a scholar as ST Joshi, and less controversial. A shout out to Fantasy, Literature or Irish communities should sort this. 83.220.239.192 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC) — 83.220.239.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Last two "keep" votes are from SPAs with no other edits. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I do not think there is much unclarity about qualification per WP:GNG, as this is a fictional character existing since 1926, and published over decades, in commercially successful books, reviewed by a range of major sources, and with critical essays covering them. I am surprised, as I see Djm-leighpark was, that the article was not simply tagged for reference improvement. However, I have to put my hands up - I think I originated this article, and I fear I never came back to reference it more fully, though I think every word was sourced somewhere (no original research required); even if WP:EN was more relaxed about referencing then, it was not like some other WPs, and the citation should have been better. I will address this now.SeoR (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure we should be discouraging IP editors, who, as I recall, contribute more edits than registered users. SPA is not appropriate - these are not Single Purpose Accounts, they're not registered at all, but anyway, anyone is entitled to comment (they could be Dunsany or Jorkens fans, or even experts!).SeoR (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The improvements made since the nomination for deletion make it clear that the character is notable. Toughpigs (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This fictional character may not have made it to TV or film - though they'd make a good live action or cartoon series - but they are widely known in speculative fiction fandom, and were popular on the mass market, so as I read the policy, they are clearly Generally Notable. 46.233.65.95 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable fictional character. An editor was able to improve the article and it is a keep. Wm335td (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The inherent notability is obvious. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Norman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and is not a notable filmmaker, nothing since My Left Breast.--NL19931993 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award winning film maker/Cinematographer. She has non-trivial coverage in secondary sources: The Telegram, and in the CBC, again in The Telegram. There is more so this is a keep per WP:NEXIST. WP:FILMMAKER states that an individual is notable if "The person has created a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or if "The person's work has won significant critical attention". So WP:POLITICIAN is not the yardstick by which we measure this person. WP:GNG and or WP:FILMMAKER are met. Lightburst (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an article about dryer balls rises above WP:NOTNEWS. It is local interest coverage to fill space, not reliable journalism. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Lightburst's findings of significant coverage. She meets WP:FILMMAKER as she has received numerous awards for her work. Netherzone (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary, and does not have time limits on it — if she qualified for inclusion on My Left Breast itself, then the fact that she hasn't done any further work in film since then, and has instead moved on to other endeavours, is not a demerit. We are an encyclopedia, not just a directory of current pop culture topics — once a person has passed our inclusion standards, they stay notable forever, and do not have to retain a presence in the current news cycle to keep their notability. If that were how it worked, we would have to delete our articles about almost every human being who isn't still in the same job that made them notable in the first place, and every person who has died — which would be the vast majority of all our articles about humans. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, and meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Left Breast, the minor, Indy film that is Norman's only claim to fame.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Left Breast. Its the only reason her article was written, and sources do not show significant coverage of Norman, but rather of her film. Her political career is not itself notable either. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. I don't see the need to merge with My Left Breast. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brent[edit]

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

Article says he never played football at senior level so must fail the SNG criteria. Being the son of Ronald Biggs does not imply GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to make GNG at all, and not inherited. At best a redirect to an up merge to and to add some content to Fitzroy Football Club#VFL Under 19's, ie, add the 1981 record. Aoziwe (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even meet our absurdly overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (duplicate !vote FYI John Pack Lambert ) A non-notable footballer. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 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. Tone 08:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escobar Fold 1[edit]

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

From the PR materials that i have seen, the Escobar Fold looks like a golden Royole Flexpai. I think that it is not notable because it is just a variant of the royole, maybe it deserves a place in the article about the royole, but not its own article. Pancho507 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest media in the world covered this phone launch, hence it passes WP:GNG and therefore is relevant to remain on Wikipedia. Certain legal disputes and what not, or if something is similar to other products on the market, does not adhere to a reasoning for a deletion of a Wikipedia article. There are many technologies which are similar to one and another, especially in today's day and age. There are now a dozen major references in the article, and I suggest users help to add more detailed information on the page. An isolated Google search reveals About 698,000 results (0.34 seconds). That is certainly more than enough for a smartphone. As far as the "Royole Flexpai", an isolated Google Search of same reveals About 228,000 results (0.30 seconds) . User:Verbatimusia (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Even the launch publicity itself passes WP:GNG due to the amount of commentary published on the topic. Though it may be that the PR launch will be the only notable thing about this. If there was a merge it may as well go to Escobar Inc. If there is a source for the royole connection then certainly mention it there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the escobar fold looks like a royole flexpai, however here they claim that royole actually stole escobar's idea. The problem is, how was royole able to steal it? And If royole stole it, then why nobody talked about that upon the royole's release? (Btw, royole was founded with the purpose of making flexible displays and they (and other foldable phone manufacturers) have spent several years developing their product (motorola spent 4, huawei 3 and samsung 8) and gearing up for production, so i don't believe that royole actually stole it. plus, how do you get a random chinese OEM manufacturer to make a product (for escobar) that is still in its infancy? A quick search in alibaba shows no foldable displays for sale, and for me that is a sign that Escobar Inc. is plagiarizing the royole flexpai, because it is not easy for anyone to just buy a foldable display and assemble a foldable phone. And if it really was escobar's idea, then why they didn't sue royole before or shorly after the royole was released?) Escobar inc also claims that Elon Musk's boring company stole their idea of selling a flamethrower (here as well) and escobar's attitude is childish and not professional at all, and that is fishy for me. (Legal methods for replacing Elon Musk as CEO of Tesla? How?

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a major launch by a very notable company in Colombia. Many South Americans know about Escobar Inc. too. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan de Ridder[edit]

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

Non notable architect who fail WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARCHITECT (3) and WP:ARCHITECT (4). Johan de Ridder played a major role in designing several significant constructions, such as the Union Buildings, which is the seat of the Government of South Africa and the President of South Africa. Krakkos (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of de Ridder is well attested by the featured article about him on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs better sourcing but this architect seems to have has a long and significant practice. MB 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing has been improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDR89 (talk • contribs)
Keep Agree with everyone on maintenance --Yahtolla (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of info available at Afrikaans page. Djflem (talk) 16:23, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Desai[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:GNG automatically and fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article looks like an advertisement. And do not have enough coverage.DMySon (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and the only reference used in not an independent source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Csgir (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Krakkos (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. There is no significant in-depth coverage on reliable sources.-Nahal^(T) 18:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all; consider speedy delete per WP:G11. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject fails general notability criteria. Also, enwiki is not linkedin. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G3 hoax. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brawl Stars (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced and I can't find anything substantial about it - would appear to be WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTALBALL KylieTastic (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, per WP:TOOSOON. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:16, 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. Sandstein 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lau Chak-kei[edit]

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

Policemen have become either heros or hate figures depending on your political viewpoint. It is an unescapable fact that this subject is notable only for one event - when he was filmed holding a shotgun in the middle of a busy protest scene during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. This is a potential attack page just like the one for Rupert Dover which was deleted as just that. While Lau has become a figure worthy of doxing to the protest movement, he was hailed in mainland propaganda as a hero and was invited to the National Day celebrations. As WP is not a platform for advertising, I nominate this article for deletion. Ohc ^¡digame! 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always try to avoid voting delete in a BLP article but this pretty much seems like an attack page.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lau Chak-kei is a popular KOL in China who have more than millions followers. His comments are so influential that was being the focus of disputes in the Legislative Council several times. The page recorded what Lau Chak-kei did at the point of view from both camps and thus it contains both the positive and negative description. For those negative description, those are just factual record of what had really happened. --Elementautumn (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Elementautumn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no in-depth coverage on the person himself. Those tabloid journalism on re-release his POV is not an in-depth coverage. He open an account in Mainland blog platform ~~Weblog~~ (edit: Weibo 微博 22:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)) is not a significant event either. All of the coverages and notability were derived from 2019 Hong Kong protests as a policeman. Matthew hk (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lau is popular in mainland China, but he is a controversial figure outside of mainland China. I think nominator should stand in neutral point to nominate for deletion.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 14:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He deserves a mention in Wikipedia, but i don't think that he deserves his own article. Pancho507 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A mention might be more suitable. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the deletion because he is not notable enough to be a page. But I suggest for a page such as the Draft:Promotion of counter-protests figure surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests to include people who are promoted by Chinese government and media. Promotion has been a method of propaganda at least in China.Mariogoods (talk) 02:46, 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. Tone 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Political Technologies[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this article is very short and has no sources except for the organization's own website. Moreover, it has been in this encyclopedia for years without growing, indicating a lack of public interest in this organization. NotButtigieg (talk) 06:53, 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. Tone 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Aden[edit]

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

Non notable disc jockey who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 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. Tone 08:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayasimha Musuri[edit]

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

Non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because you appeared in films does not mean you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very new article about a person has directed films as well as acting in them. I am surprised that it has been brought straight to AfD, rather than being tagged for improvement and allowing some time for more information and references to be added. Some of the films do appear to be notable, but it is not always clear what his role in them is. It would help if the list of Filmography included the year, his role (actor, director, etc), and, if he acted or did voice acting, what role in the film he played. I have not searched in Kannada, so I don't know if sources are available in that language. I have not found much searching online in English, and none of the sources in the article seem to have significant coverage of this person, or really of the films - the sources for Amanusha, for example, are mainly reports of the release of the audio, reporting that the people who launched it said things like "Musuri Krishnamurthy is achiever in Kannada cinema industry. When his sons have made a film the audience and media should support felt Munirathna Naidu, MLA and KFPA President." [10] That doesn't give a lot of confidence that the film has merit in itself - and I haven't found any reviews of the film after it was released. I am tending towards Delete, but I would prefer the article creator, or other editors who can read and search in Kannada, to have time to try to improve the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:56, 25 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) 10:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The article still doesn't seem ready for publication. I, too, would like to see it improved, but it isn't ready the way it is. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:00, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Jordan[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 does not qualify as per WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JK (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:01, 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. Tone 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo International School[edit]

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

No real claim to notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: A nice little stub leading a new group of 4 well organised small schools, notable for their philosophy. Bilingual Hindi English leading to International Cambridge exams at 16-18 which is notable in itself. They have the Mandatory Information on their website which clears basic reference requirements.ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: just another school that exists, but lacks significant coverage, thus failing general notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:54, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Gretzky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article makes no significant claim of notability. She has various notable relatives, and a notable partner, but this is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. In her own right she's a model, has had relatively minor roles in a few films and has released one song on iTunes. Searches aren't finding anything from reliable sources which demonstrate notability in her own right, she's almost always mentioned along with one of the notable people she's associated with. Neiltonks (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of gossip out there about her, but no reliably sourced claims of independent notability unfortunately. Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Classic case of NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional food and drink in Middle-earth[edit]

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

This is a list of indiscriminate trivia. (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) Most of the foods are biscuits! The drinks have some medicinal properties. The orc-draught is probably alcohol. None of this is notable. It has no literary significance. Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The foods and drinks of Middle-earth remain unstudied. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think any of these have enough real world coverage to justify an article. We first need people to do the comparative studies between these foods and real world meanings and trends and to produce the scholarly works to justify this. It has not been done, so this is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this subject constitutes the bulk of the articles in Hobbitpedia, it is shamefully understudied by the Big People. (Also, there's no such thing as Limpë.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I totally agree. Except most of the foods in Hobbitpedia are not distinct from foods we have articles on here, like cakes, and tea, and wine and such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage in secondary sources is discussion about whether some of Tolkien's fictional foods represent his views on Communion/the Eucharist/Lord's Supper. This would be appropriate for a section/article about Tolkien and religion, but is out of the scope of the food and drink article. All we have here is a list of different names for biscuits and alcohol. Hog Farm (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Most of the foods are biscuits!", and?? everyone knows that the English love their biscuits (and tea:)) "well, coola how relevant is your comment?" Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arnor[edit]

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

This is another example of Tolkiencruft with very little citations, mostly to the Appendices of Lord of the Rings. The kingdom of Arnor has disappeared long before The Hobbit and LOTR take place. The "history" presented here is just a back-story. Some of it seems to be invented by editors, like the "hypothetical Flag of Arnor". A lot of the article is a gazetteer of fictional places, most of which have no fictional importance. Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a mixture of non-notable content and fan fiction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a functioning place during any of Tolkien's fleshed out writings. Even if it was such an indepth article would not be justified. Not every place Tolkien placed a name on is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. There's still a long way to go: see all the stuff in Category:Middle-earth. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete and redirect to Middle-earth as a plausible search term. There's no real way to produce an article about this topic on its own, as pretty much all of the coverage of this topic is either in passing or in primary sources. Redirects are cheap, and somebody would probably type this in, so a redirect would make sense. Delete is also acceptable to me if this is deemed to not be a likely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and part fanfic. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a delete per the WP:GNG, but if we really need a redirect target, History_of_Arda#Second_Age would be appropriate. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:52, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reunited Kingdom[edit]

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

This article is pure Tolkiencruft, consisting of the speculative history of Middle-earth after the end of The Lord of the Rings. There is only one citation. We are told, "Aragorn is assumed to have rebuilt the old northern capital of Annúminas" and "The only threats or rivals to the Reunited Kingdom into the Fourth Age would have been the Haradrim, who had not been subjugated, and the Easterlings". This is almost fan fiction. Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Editors should refrain from uploading fan fiction here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am tempted to bang my head at how totally out of control Tolkiencruft has become. Except this article dates to 2004, and it is a rare Tolkien related article, even one on an extremely minor topic, that post dates 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All plot, except for the occasional sprinkling of WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't just all plot, somebody had to do original research to get a plot about this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and part fanfic. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:34, 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 keep, basically as a broad concept page indexing large land vehicles to which the term has been applied. Further discussion about the exact contents appropriate for the page can be carried out on the article talk page. BD2412 T 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landship[edit]

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

The entire article appears to be original research. The lone source does not use the term "landship", and there is no indication that it's a commonly used term for a "large vehicle that travels on land". A Google Books search indicates that the primary topic for the term is actually Landship (Barbados), with some sources also discussing tanks in the context of the Landship Committee. There also doesn't seem to be a different common name for such "large vehicles" that the page could be moved to; the alternative name "landcraft" given in the article seems to see even less use. Beyond the title issue, the content is a hodgepodge of unrelated information about different kinds of vehicles that appear to satisfy various editors' ideas of "large land vehicles". Unsalvageable. Even if "large land vehices" were a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article under some title, it would be easier to start over from scratch than to try and rewrite this page. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: question on the refdesk

Note: Editors here may also be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 19#Category:Landships, a closely related discussion.

Delete For the reasons laid out above. The article appears to be an effort to force-fit discussion of various large mobile structures into a term that is not part of the English idiom. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have largely revamped the entire page to make it more relevant in a historical context and influence in fictional work. Still a work in progress, but I have made it less of an 'original research'. I have pretty much wrote down the evolution of the Landship concept, and why these concepts failed and why its euphemism for large military war machine/superweapon faded at the end of the Second World War. I also wrote down how the failed landship project eventually influence and gave rise to modern armored fighting vehicles such as the tank.42Grunt (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an interesting article that has a lot of room for improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objections seem to be about the name, more than the content. Although both "landship" and also "land leviathan" (and "leviathan" was regularly applied to ships) have a long pedigree from 1900–1918 in both fiction and military thought. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been edited heavily since I nominated it, but the basic problems remain. Those of the new sources I checked either refer to tanks or do not mention the term "landship". There is no source provided that discusses the general concept of "a large vehicle that travels exclusively on land", a concept that is ill-defined (what's "large"?) and not shown to be independently notable. While it may be possible to establish notability of "large land vehicle" as an article topic, this article would still be original research, particularly original synthesis, top to bottom. It currently violates one of our core content policies, and none of the "keep" opinions addresses this problem or shows that it could be cured short of scrapping the entire page, despite the recent rewrite, and starting over from scratch. "WP:ITSINTERESTING" is an argument that should be given no weight. For bonus points, spot the blatant error of fact right in the lead. Huon (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lead sentence (my emphasis), "Because of their large size, their use on land is seen as impractical due to terrain obstacles, and soft ground that cannot support such large weight. Such problems are non-existent on water and in space", highlights why they don't exist and why there's no corresponding term. Large-scale mining machinery is introduced, elsewhere, but could become an expanded article. Such machinery is designed for a very limited range of action and wouldn't be considered to be a "ship"—capable of roaming long distances. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not one mention of Simon Stevin in the article? There are some encyclopedic topics associated with "Landship": Prairie schooner and British tanks (Merriam-Webster), and marginally related that Wikipedia may or may not have content for: Land sailing, "Simon Stevin" landship, The Land Ironclads. ~~Is a DAB at this title most appropriate?~~ WP:DABRELATED says not to do that.—eric 04:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanks in the British Army#British development for now. The source that sets the widest scope for a "Landship" article i've found so far is Fuller, J.F.C (1920). Tanks in the great war, 1914-1918., and i don't think that is enough to take the topic beyond "History of the Tank". The concept behind H.M. Landship Centipede and navy involvement obviously came for somewhere tho, and even survived past the war in some way[11]. I wouldn't be surprised at all if something is found that could widen the scope and justify a standalone article.—eric 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as described by EricR above. AFACT, the only meaning of landship is as here, which was an historical name for tanks, but everything else in the article is basically WP:SYNTH and otherwise made up. --Jayron 32 17:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. The Churchill-era early days of tank development are AFAIK the only topic where that term is actually used, and it should redirect there. This article is an interesting production, but unfortunately the fundamental WP:SYNTH structure makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you don't like the name, just change it. Deleting an entire article that is filled with sources and encyclopedic information solely because the name is not good is not appropriate. Michepman (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the name and the topic combined. We should be able to write a short introductory section that is verifiable and together with the title would set the scope of an article. What there is so far would exclude almost all the current article's content.—eric 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At Talk:Landship#False premise for article the suggestion has been made by the nominator to "move Landship (Barbados) to this title and add a hatnote along the lines of "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I#Development." All the tank-related information should have a place in one or another of those articles." The editor notes, "As an aside, the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit." I endorse this move. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional time may yield a consensus solution, which may include renaming or adjusting the scope.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

~~User:Huon, User:42Grunt, User:Jack Upland, User:Andy Dingley, User:Jayron32, User:EricR, User:Elmidae, User:Michepman I'm looking for your concurrence with the idea to:~~

Move any cited element of this article covering a topic, such as tanks or excavators to the relevant article (assuming that the information isn't already covered there).

Move Landship (Barbados) to this title.

Add a hatnote to the top material: "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I#Development."

This should avoid the WP:SYNTH problem that currently exists.

~~Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

I no longer support my own proposal because the social group is properly called, "Barbados Landship", as described in my comment, below. HopsonRoad (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your support/non-support of the Move proposal below here:[edit]

I'm on board with the splitting-up of various vehicle-related bits to the respective articles. I hadn't heard of the Barbados Landship before, whereas I had heard of the early tank thing; and I suspect that it may turn out not to be the primary meaning, if one were to run the numbers. So I'm not sure about the proposed move. But both being fairly arcane topics, I don't feel too strongly about that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note an earlier comment, "..., the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Older != primary topic, or not necessarily; otherwise computer would land you at people who twiddle abaci. But as I said, not much concerned about that part. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm an outside editor to this point that just read through this entire discussion, and this proposal seems to be a good conclusion to this rather lengthy AFD. Even if the landship committee was the more notable topic, it wouldn't really make sense to move an article titled "landship committee" to just "landship." Sam-2727 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of the delete Landship proposal below here:[edit]

Maybe a WP:DAB?
- Landship Committee
- Barbados Landship
- Sea Scout landships
- Prairie schooner (??? dubious Merriam-Webster entry)

—eric 21:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the Barbados Landship appears as "Barbados Landship" on its Facebook page and that's how it is styled in news reports, e.g. "Independence Parade Showcases Barbadian Culture" and "First 'Site of Memory' unveiled - The Landship" (see text). Therefore the Landship (Barbados) article should be renamed Barbados Landship, as its lead suggests, and not assume this name. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion at Talk:Landship (Barbados)#Rename: "Barbados Landship". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Therefore, the eric WP:DAB alternative works for me. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Landship (Barbados)" is now Barbados Landship. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely lost the overview of who proposes what here, but the above DAB approach works for me too. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Proposal[edit]

Comment and Keep - I have turned the page into a disambiguation page instead of making it a redirect to Landship (Barbados), as there are multiple vehicles and concepts either used the term landship or paraphrased as such. There is also the fact that the world of fiction has several examples in which the entire setting is dominated by landships.42Grunt (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep – The redirect idea only works for those entries that have actually been called a "landship" in their supporting reliable sources. Without that the remaining entries are WP:SYNTHESIS. I see no evidence for any but the few, mentioned, above to remain. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The only things that I can see disambiguation to are: British heavy tanks of World War I#Development—initially called "landships", the Landship Committee—the British naval committee that initiated the study of tanks ("landships" at the time) and became known as the "Tank Supply Committee", and the Barbados Landship—the Barbadan cultural society. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:30, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horrors of War (film)[edit]

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

I'm fixing the attempted nomination by User:Metalface1981, who wrote: "not notable, self generated content, wikimedia interview is not credible source". Another article about the same film was deleted in 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horrors of War. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:NFILM then and still does now. The only sources (since removed) were IMDb, a non-notable movie site, and a self-published Wikinews promotional interview. A whopping three reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, one of which is long deceased (FEARnet). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need sourcing beyond what every film ever made has, and that is not shown here. IMDB is not reliable, and Rotten Tomatoes is not limiting in any way. Neither suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article to the way it was before people came to delete it. The article is just fine the way it is. It shouldn't be deleted at all. It does need more information, but is a good start for the information about that motion picture. Article should not be deleted. (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZombieHorrorMovie13 appears to be the filmmaker, himself, adding more sources that are not credible and he has removed the request for deletion without consensus from the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZombieHorrorMovie13 also had his own Wikipedia page removed, Peter John Ross, and has a long history of using Wikipedia for self promotion and being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User ZombieHorrorMovie13 continues to remove the entry from Afd without community concensus. Appears to be the filmmaker himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the filmmaker of "Horrors of War". You are greatly mistaken. I am trying to add relevant information to the article about this important and notable Nazi Zombie movie. It is important to the sub genre of zombie movies. Just because you think this "Bad" Trash film isn't all that good, doesn't make it unimportant. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a notable zombie movie. It has no media. All the references you included were IMDb echo sites that simply repost self-published information from IMDb. If this movie was important, there would be more than just self-generated content to support it. I have never seen the film and have no opinion other than it is not notable and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say it is not notable? It is so, and is a very important film in the Nazi Zombie genre. It has many online reviews from credible film review sources. It has media coverage. I was not reposting self published information. I was posting information from film review sites that had a creditable editing process for the reviews. It is not "self-generated content", as you say. Just because you haven't seen the film, doesn't make it not notable or important. The article about the film should not be deleted. I'm am going to fight you on this. It is an important and notable Nazi Zombie film. It is important in pop culture, film, horror, and science fiction. I intend to continue working to improve the quality of the article. Even if it means working to counter the efforts of negative people trying to delete information from the article. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to speak on behalf of the entire Wikipedia community? The film was added to Afd and it is not to be removed but you decided to remove it anyway, against the rules. You are free to fight me on this. What makes the film not notable is that by the definition provided by Wikipedia for what is considered to be notable, this film is not notable. I have just done a Google search of the film, also, and have not found one single credible source which suggests this film is "important." People need to look into this guy's arguments with Wikipedia editors. This looks exactly the same as every other time this man's articles are taken down because he's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "notable and important" film by any means, and you're only fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. It is low-budget B-movie schlock. Otherwise it would have far more coverage than IMDb (which anyone can edit), a non-notable movie site, and next to no content on Rotten Tomatoes. Obviously you had some involvement in this production as demonstrated by your disruptive behavior of repeatedly removing the AfD tag despite repeated warnings in addition to citing a self-published interview as a source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable and important film in the genre of Nazi Zombie movies. Again, I am a researcher, and not the filmmaker who made the "Horrors of War" film. I was not trying to break any rules by removing anything. I was trying to undo the edits that were made which did remove relevant information. If you are not satisfied with the film review sources from the sites, I will dig out printed film review books from my personal library that have ISBN numbers. I was working on improving the article, and then you came along and started to delete everything before I have had the chance to improve things more. Please stop deleting stuff from it, and give me a chance to improve it. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk

You have been repeatedly warned to not remove the article from Afd but you did anyway. The article was not requested for deletion because it needed improvement. The request was made because it's not notable. My mother kept a scrapbook of every time I took a dump. She did this because she was connected to me and loved me, not because my bowel movements were notable or worth inclusion in an online encylopedia, as impressive as they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User "Metalface1981" said, "My mother kept a scrapbook of every time I took a dump. She did this because she was connected to me and loved me, not because my bowel movements were notable or worth inclusion in an online encylopedia, as impressive as they were.", this is evidence that they are just being an Internet Troll. Not someone trying to improve articles. Someone that is just trolling, and posting vulgar non-sequitur information. I was just trying to improve the article with relevant information. I have been researching the subject of Nazi Zombie films. The movie "Horrors of War" is an important film in this genre. I was not trying to remove the "Afd", I was trying to fight against your vandalism of the article. I will be working on improving the overall quality of the article. I will be adding the ISBN book information from books in my personal library in the next few days. Please get a life, and stop being an internet troll vandal. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism. If, in fact, this film was as notable as you say, why not feel confident that Wikipedians will support your claims? If one Googles "Peter John Ross Horrors or War" they find a series of self-published books, with ISBN numbers. Please refrain from insulting me as this is not personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research shows that this article was created by user bigdaddyross and the filmmaker's name is Peter John Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Metropolitan90‬ reached out to me about this deletion. Not sure if I'm adding this correctly or not. I have not entered or changed anything in several years. I am Peter John Ross (Sonnyboo), the writer/director/producer of HORRORS OF WAR. I believe these entries were made by a 3rd party with the intent of getting the entry removed, posing as someone trying to vehemently keep it.

Most other links and reviews are long gone. The movie was made in 2006. And would like to correct the record, I do not have a long history of self promotion on Wikipedia. I haven't logged in or used this account in several years. As I said, if the entry gets deleted, it gets deleted. That is up to you guys, not me. I believe the person arguing with you is trying to cause problems.

If it is your determination the film should be removed, I will not debate that. It is your decision as the editors.

I would however like any and all information about the IP address of the person who has made unauthorized changes to the entry in Dec 2019. Please contact me at the email associated with this user account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnyboo (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected with the production of the movie "Horrors of War". I was researching zombie horror movies. The film "Horrors of War" is a notable Nazi Zombie film. I came across the article, and tried to make it better, to improve the overall quality. I intend to do more work along those lines. The only problems I am trying to do is to improve the article. To fight against ignorant vandalism, and the deletion of the article about this film. It is an important film in the Nazi Zombie genre of zombie horror films. It is important for pop culture, horror, and science fiction. The article should not be deleted. You sad ignorant closed minded fascists simply trying to delete everything. You don't want to be inclusive, and add knowledge to articles? Why don't you try to make it better than just delete it? ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk

Mr. Ross has not logged in since his own article was deleted in 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter John Ross, after he tried very hard to convince Wikipedia the film was notable. It's weird that once ZombieHorrorMovie13 started losing ground in the debate that Mr. Ross now appears claiming the person defending him is pulling some ruse. His story sounds more like the plot to a bad movie that's not notable. I would be cautious about sharing IP information with this man. He could be looking to locate this person in real life and retaliate, if it's not just his own sockpuppet and we're all just victims of a master manipulator. What else would he do with the IP address? Metalface1981 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page provides some insight into Mr. Ross and his prior activities on Wikipedia, User talk:Bigdaddyross, and shows that everything he has ever posted has been about himself, not notable, and used for self-promotion. Metalface1981 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years, I do not believe the film qualifies as "notable" and I am the creator. Delete the entry for Horrors of War. I have not logged into any accounts on Wikipedia in years until last night and only because Metropolitan90‬ notified me. I had no idea this was happening and now, based on the ridiculous and frankly very rude commentary by editors, I would have preferred this conversation taken place without my knowledge. I would not have even noticed the article was deleted. The internet is a crazy place and you have just cause for such skepticism.

I do not know who talk is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnyboo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ross, I'm not going to feel bad or be browbeaten because I said your film is not notable, or for pointing out that ZombieHorrorMovie13's commentary today looks very similar to your commentary from your own article for deletion, or for somehow how not meeting your so very strict sense of decorum that gives you the position in life to look down upon me and suggest I'm rude for having an opinion, I'm going to agree with your opinion of Horrors of War and point out that we all agreee that the film is not notable. Metalface1981 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film "Horrors of War" is a notable Nazi Zombie film. I was researching those films, and came across the article about Horrors of War. You are all so full of it. I am not losing ground in an argument. I have a life in the real world other than editing Wikipedia. I am a constructive person that is trying to make the Horrors of War film article better. I am not a bad person trying to censor and delete whole articles. If you were a good person, you would have tried to make the article better instead of nominating it for deletion. That is the truth here. Hopefully I can get my books about horror movies out of my library and add the Horrors of War reviews with ISBN numbers before the article is railroaded for deletion. It is sad when there are fascists that only care about their stupid rules and censoring everything. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Nazi Zombies the alternate title to Horrors of War, in other countries? To respond to your criticism, I may have a far more interesting life than you're aware of, outside of this site, and that someone edits wikipedia, doesn't suggest they haven't had a few successes of their own, whether notable or not. Metalface1981 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve both made your positions on this issue crystal clear, but now it seems to be devolving into personal insults and it’s derailing the discussion. If you want to carry on, that’s totally fine, but take it to your respective talk pages. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that I've insulted anyone other than giving my opinions that the film is not notable, that I think that Ross is using a sockpuppet account, and that he has a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotion. After reading the rules of editing, it also appears that ZombieHorrorMovie13 has broken many rules that apply to disruptive Wikipedia posters. I may be "kind of" new here, but I've been on this site long enough to know the difference between constructive criticism and some of the very legendary flame wars I've seen on this site. Metalface1981 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am not someone connected to the "Horrors of War" film. I am a separate person researching "Nazi Zombie" movies. I came across the "Horrors of War" article, and was trying to improve the overall quality. I was not like the others trying to vandalize and delete the whole article about that film. It is sad that there are too many other people that just want to tear down the world, instead of trying to make things better. You could have tried to make the article better, instead of trying to railroad it for deletion. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk

I was the better person, by trying to improve the overall quality of the article. I added more sourcing with ISBN numbers. I will still try to be the better person and work on the article more. I am not a bad person that is trying to delete everything. You are the bad people here, trying to delete the whole article. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 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. Tone 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciccun ot Sla[edit]

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

I'm fixing the attempted nomination by User:172.58.235.49. I can't even figure out what language this article is in, although it might be one of the Sami languages based upon the text and the article creator's history. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination seems a bit premature. The article was tagged as needing translation today, and that tag says "If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks it will be listed for deletion and/or moved to the Wikipedia in its current language." Also, other editors have also posted on the article creator's user page, inviting them to translate it. Shouldn't we wait for the two weeks before listing it for deletion? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this should probably be closed for now and a new one created in two weeks if necessary. – Frood (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there are only ~300 speakers of this language the chances of anyone other than the article creator translating this article are tiny. There is no reason to retain this article for two weeks and prolong this process.----Pontificalibus 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Arceneaux[edit]

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

Non-notable city councillor who fails WP:NPOL 2, ten years tagged for notability. Sources #2 and #3 are not independent, #4 is on Reuters but press release, and #1 is a local PBS show she was in. BEFORE gave me only this LA Times article that depicts her as an activist and is the most independent source, but we need more to pass GNG. ミラ P 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Compton is not a global city for the purposes of guaranteeing her inclusion under WP:NPOL #2, so the notability test she would have to pass is that she can be referenced to a range and depth of coverage that makes her much more special than most other city councillors in most other non-global cities. But this is not showing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reuters looks like a good source.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, local run of the mill politician. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compton is a city where the mayor is almost never notable, let alone members of the city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 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. In addition to being the most common position, the arguments that this list is a distinct situation from the games broadcast as Monday Night Football and does not satisfy WP:LISTN are persuasive. RL0919 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday night National Football League games prior to 1970[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, the only assertion to notability is that these games were played on a Monday before Monday Night Football became its own series (WP:NOTINHERITED). All of the references mention the games were played on Monday but the grouping is not in itself notable. This article was listed at AFD previously in 2016 as part of a group of similar articles here that resulted in "no consensus". The article was also PROD'd in 2011 here with the explanation "Unreferenced. Does not comply with WP:NOT#STATS." It was deprodded here with the rationale "useful page". Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view, it passed WP:GNG last time and that hasn't changed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: Note I am not nominating the lists of Monday Night Football game results as that is part of a defined television series. I believe this nomination is different from the big AFD grouping previously as this is just a list of games that were randomly played on a Monday instead of Sunday for various reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paulmcdonald, this article is duplicative to History of Monday Night Football. The key is the fact that Monday Night Football before 1970 is notable, but only as a part of the history of the official MNF brand. The individual listing of results is not, simply because prior to 1970 there was no MNF brand. The topic of this article is more literally List of National Football League results for games that occurred on a Monday night prior to Monday Night Football in 1970, which is an absurd topic. Can you please elaborate on how a list of results for Monday night games before MNF is notable per WP:GNG, specifically providing a few sources that show significant coverage of this topic as a whole, because the article itself clearly doesn't have any sources that meet WP:LISTN. And again, I have to stress that the topic of this article is not History of Monday Night Football, but is a list of results of Monday night games that occurred prior to MNF. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You know Paulmcdonald, for all the times we disagreed on deletion discussions, I always respected the fact that you took the time to provide sound reasoning behind your comments, whether it was a policy, guideline, links, or well-written essay. Your lack of engagement in this thread is disappointing. You wrote in the last deletion discussion that covered more than just this article, that the articles clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with a multitude of sources. I am asking you to provide proof of what you are saying. Which sources are you referencing that make this specific article meet WP:GNG and WP:LISTN? You don't need to respond to me, obviously, but not providing anything to back up your assertions will certainly weigh on how the closing admin will judge consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, the bulk of the pinging read like "Gee Paul have you actually read this thing?" Yep, I read it. Quit pinging me, I'm busy. Want more reasoning? Okay, it's quite simple. In order to compare how Monday Night Football changed football, we need to have a control data set. No doubt the concept of Monday Night Football changed the game, the country, and to some extent the world. It's not hard to find articles about how Monday Night Football changed everything. When those highly qualified significant independent third party articles talk about how it changed everything, they are indeed making this list notable because they are saying "before it was X, and then after it became Y". All I'm saying is that if we do that, we should have both the X and the Y.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My first ping was to notify you I was asking you a direct question: Can you please elaborate on how a list of results for Monday night games before MNF is notable per WP:GNG, specifically providing a few sources that show significant coverage of this topic as a whole, because the article itself clearly doesn't have any sources that meet WP:LISTN.. You responded with Yep. My second ping was to again request that you answer the actual question. If you don't enjoy pinging, than turn it off. Up to the point that someone asks me directly to stop, I'll ping whoever I want to ping; honestly its courtesy to let people know you are talking about them. In your comments above, you have not provided any sources to satisfy WP:LISTN. We all agree that the era of Monday night games before MNF is relevant and notable, the disagreement is how a list of the results of those games meets our notability guidelines. As I requested a few times above, can you point to a source that backs up your argument? Is there even one source that lists the results of these games or discusses the results of these games? If not, your argument lacks any merit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gonzo fan2007: As I think that I said a bit earlier, Pro Football Reference has a week-by-week schedule for every single NFL game since the beginning. Here's the schedule for 1966, the year that the first televised Monday night game took place (on Halloween night in Week 8). Is it a proper, linear list of every single Monday night NFL game prior to 1970, no but since Pro-Football-Reference.com has its own article on Wikipedia, it should be pretty reliable. BornonJune8 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or indiscriminate list of stats. Pro Football Reference is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gonzo fan2007: Maybe I misread you, but you said or asked if there was a list of Monday night NFL games prior to 1970, and Pro Football Reference in that regard, has them. I wasn't even specifically referencing or referring towards the stats or results of said games themselves, just documented proof or evidence that there actually were Monday night football games prior to 1970. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment the list is WP:DISCRIMINATE and is well-defined.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/weak delete: I've read through the previous AfD and I'm completely unconvinced that many of the "keep" arguments there apply to this page. For example, the argument analogizing to lists of episodes of a tv show is strong, but would apply only to the lists for Monday Night Football games. I read LISTN as requiring that the topic at the core of the list be notable and discussed by third party sources, and right now all of the sources on this page are effectively extended box scores that rarely, if ever, discuss the fact that NFL games are being played on a Monday in any way that we'd consider significant. Yes, the MNF format would become notable with the tv deal, but that's not the topic of this article and I have an extremely difficult time justifying this article without sources that discuss Monday games before 1970 as a set. Interestingly, there is a section in the MNF article about this topic (History_of_Monday_Night_Football#Pre-1970)...but it has no sources for all of the prose that might justify notability, of course. If this section was properly sourced, I'd be fully convinced of the notability of the topic at the core of this list. As is, I'm leaning delete/merge into that section. Nole (chat·edits) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nolelover. Fails WP:LISTN as the topic isn't discussed as a group in reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nolelover:, @Gonzo fan2007:, @Eagles247: Several articles on regular season, prime time NFL games prior to the introduction of Monday Night Football on ABC in 1970: Monday Night Football Was Born in Detroit in 1964, Giants' First Night Game at Home in 26 Years Marks NFL 1964 ..., The forgotten history of Lions-Packers games on Monday night, The Lions hosted the first Monday Night Football Game in NFL history, Professional Sports Antitrust Bill - 1964: Hearings...88-2...Jan 30, 31; Feb, First Monday Night more football than flash, September 21, 1970…’ABC Monday Night Football’ Debuts, October 21, 1934 : Detroit Lions Play First Night Game BornonJune8 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you are failing to grasp is that sources need to discuss the list as a whole, not just each individual entry in the list. Nolelover, it is important to note that almost every source BornonJune8 provided is a blog or unreliable source. None of them (that I can read) discuss the topic of "Monday Night Football games prior to 1970". They do mention individual instances of MNF occurring before 1970, but not the list as a whole. History of Monday Night Football is the appropriate place for this information, which should be in prose form, and not list format. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - - @Gonzo fan2007: Naturally, not every one of those sources that I provided is going to literally spell out every single Monday night NFL game prior to 1970 (I think Pro Football Reference is a good place to start though). What I was trying to say is that there has been some online coverage of the fact that the NFL did actually stage Monday night games prior to it becoming a regular occurrence in 1970. Before the merger, there were occasional Monday night games, but the first one to be televised was between the Cardinals and Bears in '66. There were only six televised Monday night games before 1970. That doesn't necessarily mean that I all out disagree with your argument that some of my sources aren't the most "reliable". BornonJune8 (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        After looking over all the sources you've added, I still believe the more reliable ones with any significant coverage are only really talking about a couple years in the context of the MNF deal, although that might be enough to make this notable to others. Nole (chat·edits) 05:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose, maybe the lists, but definitely the prose in the 1960s bit, to History of Monday Night Football. This particular grouping of games is not notable in and of itself, though some of the games in the 60s are important historically to the development of the television show. However, that article already does a good job of spelling out the history, so there may not be anything to merge, but we should make sure we don't lose the content. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's some persuasive argument against keeping, there is still disagreement on what to do with the material. (Delete or merge?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Unclear why it matters what day of the week these games were played on. What about games on other days of the week? The only relevance is with respect to the TV program; these games listed have no relationship to each other. Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: It matters because the name of the program point blank is MONDAY Night Football. That means it's the only NFL game that's being played on that particular day...and in prime time. Ever noticed that the other games aren't officially branded on air as SUNDAY Afternoon Football! BornonJune8 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - But these games are NOT PART OF THIS PROGRAM! Write all you want about MONDAY Night Football the TV program, but merely combining the words "Monday, "night", and "football" do not make an encyclopedic topic. Were the games in this list "officially branded on air"? No, so this is the among the dumbest things I've seen on here in while. Put it in the history article. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Reywas92: My main point that Sunday afternoon games are the norm so it would be of little point to track all of them unlike Monday night games. And dare I say that Monday night games were incredibly rare before they became a regular and permanent occurrence in 1970. How exactly is pointing out the rare case of regular season NFL games being played on a different day and time of the week "dumb"? And how do you know that they were't branded on air as Monday Night Football? They had to presumably, make reference to the unique programming occurrence. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails LISTN. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Monday Night Football in order to WP:PRESERVE the article history, and selectively merge any material that is relevant into that article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. The only connection between these games and the only notability asserted is that they happened to be played on Mondays. While the Monday Night Football package is certainly notable, notability is not inhereted, so the small list of pre-1970 Monday games should not have its own article. Some of the content could be merged to History of Monday Night Football per User:SportingFlyer above. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:03, 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) 02:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heartstop Music[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable. Fails NCORP. No coverage about the company itself, let alone quality independent extensive coverage. Found 3 quasi independent sources: the first one is just a concert listing; the second one is a speaking engagement listing; and the third one is actually a Facebook repost about a music video. PK650 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nowhere near meeting notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete catalog page for them -- promotional and apparently non-notable DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet GNG. A WP:BEFORE search brings up almost nothing. Bookscale (talk) 01:07, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Ewens[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per above to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 08:06, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Sparnon[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:03, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Phillipson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local politician without adequate coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McBryde (South Australian politician)[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:01, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scales[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL, and the level of the MBE doesn't pass notability criteria either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:01, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Rich (South Australian)[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 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 List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Craddock[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 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 procedural close. Nominator somehow accidentally created two simultaneous AFD discussions for this article at the same time. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Phillipson (2nd nomination) has already attracted comment and this one has not, I'm just closing this since they don't both need to be open simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Phillipson[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Vowles[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An institution being notable doesn't make all the people involved with it notable, for the same reason that we don't have articles on every board director of every notable company or NGO. Not a fan of a merge as it would overwhelm the page about the council, though not opposed to a separate mayors page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A separate mayors page sounds like a good suggestion to me. SpaceFox99 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete a non-notable local politician.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 delete. Tone 13:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of storylines in Emmerdale[edit]

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

Aligns with WP:PLOT. Full of WP:OR. DarkGlow (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, except there's (probably) no OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 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 redirect to Emmerdale#Scheduling. Tone 13:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling of Emmerdale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scheduling of Emmerdale

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:TVGUIDE. Aligns with WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR. DarkGlow (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emmerdale#Scheduling and remove the hatnote on main article. I agree this does fall into the category of articles which probably should not be on wikipedia, and as there is already a section, then it should be redirected. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information in this article detailing the scheduling variants, especially prior to 1988, should be kept and a shortened version of what is detailed in this article can easily be added to the Emmerdale#Scheduling section of the main Emmerdale article. Similarly, the Emmerdale#Repeats section can be included in the main article as a new section, or as a subsection of Emmerdale#Scheduling. Therefore, as long as the important information is retained, I see no reason for a separate article, especially as it can be argued that the article is not far short of being a WP:TVGUIDE. Rillington (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article whatever is needed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cut down for Emmerdale#Scheduling. Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 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 redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Price (South Australian)[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. There's no point in me trying to defend my work, I'll lose. Could we possibly merge the information into a new section in the Town of Walkerville page? Also, if the Council itself is notable, how are the people that make it up not notable? SpaceFox99 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Town of Walkerville or alternatively a new page, List of Mayors of the Town of Walkerville, in good faith to the creator of the article who has put a lot of work into this and others - they are well sourced. The information should be more notable as part of the Council page, possibly with a new section on the various mayors etc. Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. SpaceFox99 has done a lot of solid work here and it has definite merit and they are likely search terms. Unfortunately there are not many secondary references available to demonstrate notability, of local minor politicians. SpaceFox99 I have taken the liberty of saving your hard work at List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville. Please do not feel deflated by these AfDs, and I suspect List of mayors of the Town of Walkerville will need a bit of a tidyup, so please, back to your good hands. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 05:59, 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. Tone 13:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollyoaks producers[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Table could be added to a crew/producer section on Hollyoaks. DarkGlow (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 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 merge to Graduation (album). Sandstein 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Champion (Kanye West song)[edit]

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

"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → Spin speaks about the sample clerace and thats it, is not multiple and that alone isn't enough. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article. "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." → Once more this is not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above points and discussion on talk page. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Seems the most reasonable answer. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:59, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Donaldson[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this author is notable per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WRITER. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has written 62 books, Co-authoring a book with the Price of Wales is also noteworthy. Considered an expert in her field and often quoted in magazines. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is all great, but it doesn’t pass the author criteria on Wikipedia. Quotes aren’t significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prolific gardening writer with extremely little coverage. The best I can find is Wales Online, which I think is an interview so not independent, and I'm not sure it is a reliable source. Tacyarg (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just a little note for the nominator ("I found nothing that shows this author is notable"), and "deleters" ("Fails", "extremely little coverage"), one way to meet WP:NAUTHOR is for the person's books to be significant/well known with multiple reviews, for example, a quick gsearch for reviews of The Elements of Organic Gardening (found in around 460 libraries) brings up a number of reviews ie. The New York Times ("Organic Looks Easy, If You've Got a Royal Staff" (subscription needed)), Country Life ("Review: The Elements of Organic Gardening"), PBS ("Grow: Books - The Elements of Organic Gardening"), BookPage ("Book Reviews: The Elements of Organic Gardening"), Publishers Weekly ("The Elements of Organic Gardening"), Booklist, Choice Reviews, Library Journal, (reviews here), so easily meets WP:NBOOK, of course, Donaldson is a co-author of this book, and more is needed (a couple more books that have multiple useable reviews), but this shows she is further down the wikinotable track than the earlier part of this afd conveys. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She is well regarded by her peers. The prince of Wales wouldn't work with her otherwise, plus I found that Good Housekeeping magazine [12] "consulted gardening expert Stephanie Donaldson" for information. And of course her books get coverage proving she is a notable writer. Dream Focus 04:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a prolific author and I’ve added a few references to improve the article. Lineslarge (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple. Reviews of her work demonstrate notability. Clovermoss (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple Prolific, credible, 71 books. one way to meet WP:NAUTHOR is for the person's books to be significant/well known with multiple reviews. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple and I also found reviews for earlier books and added to the article. If anyone has full access to Booklist there's reviews there, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is sourced with reliable sources with wide international coverage of the subject. Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Words[edit]

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

"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → one review by Spin is not multiples and that alone isn't enough. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article. "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." → Once more this is not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above and talk page. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per reasons already listed. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between Complex and Spin, the article is on its way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complex source is an interview with Freeway, an interested third partie. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tony the Tiger. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the third party sourcing currently in the article is enough to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 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.