The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Central Hockey League is one where a player has to satisfy NHOCKEY #3 (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star) to get a Wikipedia article, not one where he's entitled to have one the moment he skates onto the ice, but this article neither claims nor sources any indication that Pierce clears that bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Kept by way of no consensus in 2006; it's high time to revisit. Plenty of the delete votes in that argument were well-argued. I'm not sure the keeps hold up as well - many were based on Alexa rank, or information from the site itself.
What we don't have is independent sources substantially about the topic, in either English or Arabic (although I admit I'm searching Arabic by translation). We can't redirect to Remal IT, because that's a redlink. There's nowhere else I can think of to redirect this to. Without independent sources, we can't retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement of a non-notable site. Also I speak Arabic and I am an Arab and I have never heard of this site. It is very clear that it is an advertisement. --SharabSalam (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not independently notable. Consensus had been to redirect (as mis-capitalization of name) to the band this person is a part of. Redirect was turned into this page. Not independently notable outside of Less than Jake. Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Chris DeMakes in Brooklyn last February on his solo tour. As a long time LTJ fan, I wasn’t sure what to expect without the rest of the band but it was very cool! Great singer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:843:101:9E0:2C27:FDAA:5925:2FBB (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't provide a valid reason for keeping the article. Hog Farm (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Chris perform solo in December 2018 in Cape Coral Florida at Rack Em’ Billiards. His show was super fun. I picked up a copy of his record “I’ll Be Your Eyes”. It was a tribute to his grandmother and the care that Hospice had given her in the last months of her life. All sales went to Hospice. As someone who has relied on their help before, this is a super noble cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B8A1:8012:7194:3AB:A2FB:F171 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't provide a valid reason for keeping the article. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this. Hog Farm (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the band's website, his last name is spelled with an uppercase "M" in "DeMakes", and googling with that spelling has already been redirected there, per previous AfD. Although he has a solo career, coverage of such reflect his notability as a member of Less Than Jake. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Less Than Jake). I can find no reliable media coverage of his solo work, and everything found is in conjunction with the main band. The fact that he has performed solo can be briefly mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Less Than Jake as a reasonable variant on captialisation. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect Could be an indication of a child actor. scope_creepTalk 23:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her popular show or to her parents. —Harshil want to talk? 04:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails to establish notability. The two reception references are trivial, extremely focused "Top X" lists, and not sure if the first one is even a reliable source. TTN (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:GNG. Page is mostly WP:FAN and the "cultural impact" section is just one or two sentences that are not even sourced. lullabying (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and needs info on reception for it to be notable, otherwise it's just WP:FAN. lullabying (talk) 09:14, 6 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 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be a POV coatrack for editors to point to societal changes as "moral breakdown" of the society, with the online sources not generally using that term (and those that do, like philforhumanity.com, not being reliable sources.) Google Scholar uses of the term "moral breakdown" are generally addressing an event for an individual, not a society, or are discussing the analysis of morals. Non-scholar invocations that I am finding are using it as a term of POV attack on a society and are not an analysis of what constitutes one in a way that would contribute to notability as a topic. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Definitely something to include about tendencies to use the phrase, but ought not be misrepresented as a known area of study. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Moral decay, which is mentioned in the lede, has been widely used for hundreds of years, and all but the first example illustrate. Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources used actually reference "moral decay", or will moving it still leave it the same sort of POV original research spectacle that it is now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article should of course be rewritten at some point, but it is a valid topic for Wikipedia. I would prefer to it remaining in mainspace. If the consensus becomes that the current article should be hidden in some way, I would like to exhort the closer and voters to take all available steps to prioritize the process of its rebirth. Anarchangel (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rewrite the lede sentence as:
"Moral decay is a value judgement about society as a whole, that sees a degradation or loss of moral values."
The article gets bogged down around the part where it tries to distinguish the correctness of a judgement of moral decay and the incorrectness of a moral panic. Ideally, we need to be saying that they both are ethical assessments, without regard to being correct or not, and that is something that moral panic also fails to do. Anarchangel (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Davis (juggler) had an act where he would say he was juggling George Washington's ax... over the years they had merely replaced the handle. And the blade. But it occupied the same space as George Washington's ax.
That sounds to me like what you're proposing - an article with a different title, and different content. At which point, it is not this article. It may be a worthwhile one, but we need not save this one for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be impractical, but it is in every other way the best solution and what should happen, and this title should link to the new article. Which isn't to say that what you propose is not true; they will doubtless both have the same end result, seeing as WP is unplanned and voluntary. Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how Moral decay or Moral breakdown are any different from Decadence. Is this turning into a series of forks? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't read any further, as I am now 2 for 2 paragraphs distinguishing the concepts: "among the members of the elite", and may imply "censure or acceptance" Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet Wikipedia standards in its current state. If it can be put in a sandbox and worked on, then perhaps that should be pursued. 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Milokan (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An alphabetical list of Pakistan-related articles. This might have made very good sense in the earliest days of wikipedia, but it's difficult to see why we should continue to keep it around. It is not complete: with links to 1,500 articles, it covers only about 6% of the approximately 24,000 articles currently tracked by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. And the articles included are not in any way representative as a selection of "important" topics (something that's anyway done by Outline of Pakistan) – there are no entries for either the current president Arif Alvi or for his predecessor Mamnoon Hussain, there are no entries for big cities like Gujranwala or Mansehra, or for the country's 3rd and 4th most spoken languages (Sindhi and Saraiki).
This index is so incomplete that the harm it does in misleading readers far outweighs any conceivable benefit it might still provide. But even if it were to be replaced with a fully up-to-date list, the result would not be desirable: the complete article would be around half a megabyte big – even though that's still below the hard technical limit on article size, it exceeds the recommended upper bounds several times over.
If someone needs this list for any use at all, it should be moved into the project space. And if the article's title is deemed to be an eligible search term, then it could be turned into a redirect to either Outline of Pakistan or to Category:Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 5 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and Redirect to Transformers (toy line). The toys under "Generation 1 Pretender Waverider (1988)" at the very least appear to be worth mentioning. I am unsure about the first two sources and how they would be worked in as the first one hints at an announcement or passing mention, while the second is a quote. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 6 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DELETE: I was going to try to breathe some life into this page but after reflection believer it should be deleted. The subject is a minor political player who never held elective officer. The page is stagnant ands there is little chance that it would every seriously be updated. I do not believe it fits the criteria for notability under the Wikipedia policy. At best it should be merged with another site. I was told by another editor that this is the second time that this site has been nominated. The last time was in May. Thoughts?
Comment this is a "political" nomination (not in the party sense). The nominator has failed to edit war ([1], [2], [3], [4]) the article to their preferred version and is now aiming to delete it since they have failed to get their way. This nom would seem, therefore, a candidate for being speedily kept under criterion #2, per nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. (And possibly under #1 also: The nominator...fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) User:Boardwalknw8 is also an WP:SPA for this topic ([5]) and should declare their conflict of interest, if they have one. ——SN54129 20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no conflict of interest in this matter. There was no "edit war". There is no attempt at disruption. My actions have been taken in good faith. Please take the time to review all of the comments that have been hidden from view by user SN54129. I believe they are relevant to the discussion. You decide.
Keep While the subject has never held elected office, seems to have generated enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have been told this was the second time this site has appeared for deletion. I did spent hours trying to edit the site because it looked like it would be easy to do. I worked hard at it for hours. Then summarily had all my edits all removed by a user who threatened to have me blocked when I pushed back. The record on that is clear.
It is not lost on me that the person who took down all the edits is apparently from the same area as the subject. It certainly appears that he or she is emotionally invested in keeping the page intact and not allowing edits to be made or blocking them in some way. That's their issue, not mine. There was no edit war. I didn't even know what an edit war was. There was one user that simply took down all of my edits 5 to 6 times without serious explanation because they didn't like them. So to suggest that I want the page removed because of that is ludicrous. Frankly, I'd like to have my edits restored but I know that won't happen.
It easy be be mean or difficult at a distance, especially when you are anonymous. Or have a hidden agenda. Its's shame and its one of the reasons that people don't get involved in this types of organizations. I'm retired. I was interested in learning how to edit on line. Not be personally attacked or bullied in the process. A few of you helped me. For that I say thank you.
Do what you want with the site. I was told that this was the second time it appeared for deletion by another member. I assume that to be true. From my perspective, it does not meet the Notability requirement for Wikipedia. read the policy and see what you think. Read the article as is and ask yourself its it's Wikipedia worthy. Keep it or don't. But if you do, don't block legitimate edits because you don't like the style of the piece.
Sorry to editorialize. Thanks again to those who have helped me. I wish you well. I'm no longer going to be involved in this discussion.
@Boardwalknw8: Thank you for withdrawing this nomination, thereby saving the community's time and resources; @C.Fred: would you do the honors. ——SN54129 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I am not withdrawing the request that the Page be taken down. I want the community to consider it. I have no further plans to comment on it myself. Let the community itself decide as provided for by the policy. Please do not remove it until it has run it's course. Thank you.
I didn't think you were :) but it was as well to encourage you to publicly admit that this was a WP:POINTy nomination made for the purposes of disruption. Cheers, ——SN54129 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO SN54129: I don't think this constant sniping is appropriate. I didn't plan to post again but I need to respond to your comments. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads.
It's apparent that a few individuals want this site to stay the way it is. Clearly not for the purpose of biography or they would have at least considered the changes and edits that were made. This is the second time this site has been noted for deletion. The animosity alone that has been demonstrated by others should be a reason to take it down. I refer you to my previous comments above.
By the way, have you posted before under a different name or ID? I think that if you have more than one account you should acknowledge that. Please enjoy your remaining wiki break. Let's examine the facts in an objective fashion, not with one sided or smug advocacy. Let the community itself decide as provided for by the policy. That's the whole purpose of objectivity and peer review.
Cheers to you as well and Happy Holidays.
I have templated you for egregious personal attack. In other news, no, the page has never been nominated for deletion before; that's merely a reflection of your lack of understanding as to Wikipedia's processes. ——SN54129 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the article's history. There are no deleted edits. There were no previous nominations for deletion (AfD) or proposals for deletion (PROD), nor was the article tagged for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO SN54129:Thanks for your note. By the way, You never did answer the question about posting under a different name or ID.I was told by another editor that this site was noted for deletion earlier this year. That's why I made those comments. It's interesting that you perceive my response as an "egregious attack" when I have been accused of bias and raising this issue for the purpose of "disruption" only.
I believe my responses speak for themselves. Attacking me personally as being a new user or not understanding wikipedia policy doesn't address the substance of the issue. You may attack me all you wish and question my experience but there is clearly something going on here behind the scenes by certain editors. I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision. Cheers.
NOTE TO C.FRED. Thanks for your input. I believe you are mistaken about the reverted/deleted edits. The history of the page clearly shows that on 4 occasions on December 4th, that JEDCUBED reverted 19 edits en masse without any attempt at discussion our apparent review of the citations. (Remove diffless WP:ABF / WP:ASPERSION——SN54129) Once again, I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision.
@Boardwalknw8: I have removed your aspersion against C.Fred; on the English Wikipedia, unsupported allegations such as that are considered personal attacks (please see WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links). Please do not restore it. Also:Please begin to indent your remarks, and you don't need to keep BOLDCAPing stuff, it will not attract a quicker answer. If you want to ping someone, do it thus: @C.Fred:, or, in plain code, ((reply|C.Fred))Also please read up on the difference between deleted pages and deleted edits—what I believe you are claiming—and plain old reversions—which are what actually happened to your edits on account of their being deemed unhelpful to the article by various editors. In other words, they were not deleted, merely undone; they are still in the page history.Finaly, please stop accusing people of socking and conspiring against you; it is merely a case of learning from others' experience...which you should do, it will honestly make things easier for everyone. ——SN54129 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boardwalknw8: I was not focusing on removal of content on the page. I was only looking for attempts to delete the article outright—and there's nothing to indicate in the history that anybody, other than you, has attempted to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO SN54129: Thank you the information on how to communicate. I will work on that in the future. The learning curve for me is a bit steep so please bear with me for now. I believe that my question to C.Fred was appropriate. I also don't believe you have the unilateral right to remove it. The same is true of the removal and subsequent shutdown of the undone" edits". Therefore, I ask that you restore my question. Let's ask the community if it's inappropriate. I also note that you never answered my question to you about more than one editing account and neutrality. I find this interesting since I was asked to do the same.
I am not accusing anyone of conspiring against me. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads. Let's get to a discussion on the merits.
Sorry about not being indented. Still working on that...Cheers.
Comment: I feel a need to clarify here. I've seen Boardwalknw8 has characterized my reversion of their edits in a negative light. "It is not lost on me that the person who took down all the edits is apparently from the same area as the subject. It certainly appears that he or she is emotionally invested in keeping the page intact and not allowing edits to be made or blocking them in some way. That's their issue, not mine. There was no edit war. I didn't even know what an edit war was. There was one user that simply took down all of my edits 5 to 6 times without serious explanation because they didn't like them."
First off, I am in no way involved with the subject. Secondly, the reversion was because, on reviewing the content that was added, it appeared to be in violation of the Neutral point of view policy. I make an effort to avoid becoming emotionally attached to stuff like this.
In addition, the user has also characterized my action of leaving warnings on their talk page as "threatening them". My actions were never meant to threaten. They were to warn a user whose edits appeared to violate NPOV to stop making changes that were non-neutral. I suggest this user take a look at the assuming good faith policy, before interpreting my actions as hostile. Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO JEBCUBED: I will apologize to you in advance for the formatting. I'm still working on it.
At the outset, thank you for your post. While I appreciate the fact you are an experienced editor, the manner in which you handled this allowed me to draw only one conclusion. All 19 edits I made were summarily reversed without any attempt of any kind to discuss this matter. When I added them back, I was told that you would have me blocked. I was trying to create a page that is not notable into something that might be. I believe that "good faith" would have been an attempt at discussion which never occurred. You simply could have pointed out the areas where you believe there was an issue about non-neutrality. Rather than demand it be done your way.
Having said that, I appreciate your post. If you say you have no interest in the matter and were working in good faith, I accept that. No one likes to engage in these kinds of back and forth discussions. I made the request to delete this site in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not meet the requirements on notability. Let's get to a discussion about that on the merits. Thank you again. I think you showed quite a bit of class in your post.
Keep Seems to be a rather POINTy nomination Head of the state party, seems to meet GNG. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 23:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus that the subject passes WP:JOURNALIST is clear. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if [..,] it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline", so GNG is technically not really necessary. (non-admin closure)ミラP 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth coverage to establish notability, it is just passing checks of existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I’m normally pretty sceptical of porn articles because they send to fall victim to link spam from adult industry blogs (many of which are unreliable or are just interviews), this one does seem to fit within the GNG. The subject is covered in mainstream publications like the New York Times and the Daily Beast and many of these sources cover her in significant levels of detail. This might be the rare porn star that has solid coverage from WP:RS. Michepman (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is a very wide and diverse collection of sources there and there is more. I just cannot see how it is case for delete in any scenario. scope_creepTalk 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet GNG, or at least, I can't find WP:THREE sources. The New York Times link [7] is just a director listing saying she was in Superbad; that's trivial, not GNG. The Daily Beast links don't count for notability because she's a writer for the Daily Beast. Articles written by her, and articles written about her by her co-workers, are not independent and thus don't count for notability. The Daily Dot is an interview transcript; also not independent (those are the subject's words, not the journalist's). AVN and other industry coverage is also not independent and doesn't meet WP:AUD. I'm not seeing any sources that meet GNG, or anything else supporting NAUTHOR or NACTOR. – Levivich 03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Audience or WP:AUD under WP:ORG is not a restriction on the notability of people nor a determination of a source's reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - throwing out the Daily Beast articles that's written by her, she still passes the GNG. The Daily Dot article includes a biographical paragraph about her in the journalist's voice prefacing the interview. MSN Australia and The Independent wrote about Snow and one of her articles here. [8][9]. Actually her articles are frequently cited by reliable sources satisfying WP:JOURNALIST.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-trivial mention in the New York Times, establishing notability: [17] (This is different than the other NYT link Levivich links to above) Samboy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles about her do not meet GNG. She hardly receives significant coverage, for instance, in the NYT article referenced by Samboy and I agree with Levivich on other sources. The only thing giving me pause is Morbid's claim that she qualifies under NJORUNALIST. I think there's a reasonable case to be made there though some of the sources are better (The Week) than others (NY Post). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that none of the many sources linked in this article satisfy GNG because they're either brief mentions, not independent, or they're quoting her work but not talking about her as a person. I also agree that a case can be made that the subject meets NJOURNALIST. If I believed that meeting an SNG without meeting GNG was sufficient to keep an article, then I'd say "keep, meets NJOURNALIST", but because I feel that an article that meets an SNG but doesn't meet GNG should be deleted, I'm staying with my delete !vote. – Levivich 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. For someone with such a prolific publication history (12 series and tons of short stories), I honestly tried my hardest to look for information about her on Japanese websites, but Google doesn't turn up a lot of searches and there are no independent sources that confirm how notable she is (except for this BuzzFeed list). It seems like her last work was in 2009-2010. Shueisha has removed any mention of her works from their database. lullabying (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, no awards have been won and there is very little coverage of her in Japanese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of her works appear to be one shots, nothing notable has been found in terms of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 6 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.
Does not meet WP:NPROF as a part-time educator. Most of the information in the article is self-sourced (and a bit promotional). I tried draftifying this to allow time for the author to establish notability, but I was reverted. – bradv🍁 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. A 2017 PhD is almost surely WP:TOOSOON. Searches gave nothing towards WP:NPROF nor much of anything else. Comment that it's possibly (but appears unlikely to me) that a search in the Cyrillic alphabet would be more productive. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry has been confirmed; striking this and the next comment from the socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be a WP:GNG/WP:PROF failure. Perhaps it is the obscurity of the subject's field, but I am not seeing much coverage in third-party sources. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails both GNG and PROF. J947(c), at 03:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While some editors advocate keeping, no policy explanation was offered to establish notability or other reasons that this article belongs and as such there is a clear consensus established by those advocating delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the family have individual members that are notable, the family unit is not.
This would be more sensible as a category: "Smith Family"; or as a list, "List of Smith Family members" - but NOT a stand alone article.
Similarly, this family unit SHOULD include ALL family members, ex wives, grandfathers etc. - at present the correct title for this article would be "Family members of Will Smiths current spousal-family" Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a content fork and offers nothing additional that can be presented under List of showbusiness families. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unhelpful list. Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is exactly the sort of list that aids our core users (students) in researching for their papers; you can have a list and a category. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maybe some general clean-up can be done and add some more information, but yeah, keep Dpm12 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has nothing that isn't properly included on Will Smith, a needless split. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria. All of the cited coverage appears to be either self-published or routine. There does not seem to be an indication that these individual instances have had a lasting effect, nor that they meet the general notability guideline. Furthermore, they offer the reader nothing other than further data, something Wikipedia is not for than the key information at the main article. The formula is: copy the key dates, theme and attendees from the website. It appears to be an indiscriminate collection of data, something Wikipedia isn't for. SITH(talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the articles largely need to be expanded to provide more detail about what happened at these individual meetings, I think it may be premature to delete these articles. The meetings are significant as they are the ICMWP is the largest (and perhaps only) international organization of Communist Parties throughout the world. The meetings themselves are mentioned in numerous secondary and primary sources online (specifically Greek, Chinese, and Portuguese publications). "Furthermore, they offer the reader nothing other than further data, something Wikipedia is not for than the key information at the main article." I don't disagree that there is a formula for creating these articles, at present I am the only one who is working on this project so I simply have not had the time to expand the articles to include more relevant information. Jp16103 15:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirectInternational Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties already lists the national organizations and their attendance at the meetings. The meeting articles provide nothing more than this and do not demonstrate individual notability. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:RAPID also says "Don't rush to delete...." Jp16103 has a point that there are sources in languages other than English, to which she or he may have access. JSTOR lists 33 search results of English language articles that mention the IMOCWP, tho none devoted to it exclusively: here. Judging from the mentions, the meetings are more important outside the English speaking world.ch (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the table to List of communist parties and delete all these pages or keep only the latest one. The meaningful information in the Table is column "Parliamentary representation" because it shows influence of these parties in various countries. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. The articles have no individual notability.--Darwinek (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The controlling policy is WP:NEVENT. There needs to be diverse, in-depth, and persistent coverage. These do not have this as searches show. Collectively however, they do belong in a list of these events somewhere. No prejudice against spinning out later if foreign language sources are found that satisfy the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui雲水 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus The PC World and IDG articles appear to establish notability; but I can’t find a third reliable reference. I say close with “no consensus”. I would vote “merge”, preserving history, if we could find a suitable merge target. Samboy (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Redirects and disambiguation can be added/moved here at editorial discretion, but the consensus is clearly in favour of removing the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was that it'd be notable, but I'm not seeing anything. There is an issue that Google Books just shows a million Transformers books. The Gizmodo reference in the article is junk, and there's otherwise nothing here. TTN (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum Redirect to Transformers as a clear search term, if no additional sourcing can be found. --Masem (t) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are countless minor mentions, I can't find any significant discussion of Cybertron itself. Delete as fancruft failing WP:GNG and move Cybertron (disambiguation) to basename.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:08, 5 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) 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If there is any coverage describing the reception of this plot device in multiple news or academic sources, then I would suggest moving it to drafts. But it seems like the article mostly focuses in-universe aspects instead of public reaction towards how it's treated as a plot device, so I would suggest deleting it instead. lullabying (talk) 19:31, 5 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.
Besides my feeling that there aren't sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, I just noticed from the edit summary from the WP:SPA creator of the article that its original intent was to smear the company. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't accurately written. It is a India company entirely, not global or based in the United States, at least according to the company website. If someone has an axe to grind, they are first making a mountain of a mole hill....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus but discuss merging/disambiguation-fication or rewrites. This deletion nomination was started due to a concern that the article in its current form is conflating disparate concepts in a way prohibited by WP:SYNTH and that each of the concerns has a page already. There are about 9 keep arguments (I've chosen to ignore "weakish" adjectives), 1 split (+1 which favours either keep or split), 1 delete (the nom) and 1 merge. Normally this would be enough for a keep but from reading the arguments it appears a substantial amount of keep arguments do not address the WP:SYNTH concerns at all ... and as a concern grounded in fundamental policy, one ought to address it.
Some people however do address it by presenting sources, but from the follow up discussion - especially from Levivich's extensive rebuttal on the one side and Slatersteven's on the other side - it's not clear that a consensus has materialized that the presented sources actually address the WP:SYNTH/redundancy problems due to e.g concerns that most sources only address specific versions which already have articles. On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus developing that a plain deletion is not the ideal way to resolve the issue, especially as the nominator has considered withdrawing. I also see the procedural points raised at the end but a 4-5 year old prior AFD is not necessarily a strong concern.
Overall, it does not seem that we have a consensus for deletion but also not a consensus for unqualified keeping without some serious work on the article, and while one might declare this a consensus for a merge/split combination, I don't think it is clear enough to call it the agreed-upon outcome of the discussion. So this is a no consensus, default to keep, but both further discussion of rewrites/merges/dsiambiguifications are possible on the talk page or bold action at editorial discretion, subject to the normal policies or guidelines that govern such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because the topic "no-go area" is not a notable topic. Reliable sources do not discuss "no go areas", per se. Rather, there are different kinds of "no-go areas": military exclusion zones, LGBT-free zones, ghettos, and so on. But it doesn't appear any RS covers all of these disparate things as one category called "no go zone". The lead of the article shows this: it provides a definition that is actually the synthesis of three separate examples. The sources discussed in the prior 2015 AfD are also examples of particular kinds of no-go areas (to which the label "no go area" is applied), but not of a category that includes military exclusionary zones, legally-enforced exclusionary zones, de-facto political exclusionary zones, high-crime areas, etc. As a result of there not being any secondary sources defining the category, the article is (and basically always has been) a collection of WP:SYNTH. And, of course, it's constantly the subject of edit wars–repeated page protection is having no effect. This article should be deleted, and the content spun off or merged into other articles about more-specific zones, like military exclusion zone, etc. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keepish Its a real thing (And yes there are sources that talk about NO go areas), but the article is a bit of a POV mess in which various agendas are clashing. Rather then delete I think there needs to be an RFC about what the article is about, and enforce that ridgedly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, can you link to some examples of RS that define a "no go area" generally (as opposed to a specific kind of exclusionary area that they label a "no go area")? – Levivich 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you a dictionary definition [[18]], that is enough to tell me this may be a real thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think "it's a real thing" (which was the basis for many keep votes in the last AfD) is missing the point. Yes, lots of dictionaries have an entry for "no go area", but we're an encyclopedia and we don't have a stand-alone entry for every word or phrase in the dictionary. Here's an obligatory link to WP:NOTDICTIONARY :-) I'm not finding any non-dictionary sources that discuss "no go areas" as a broad topic. In fact, the academic sources I see all use the phrase in different ways–different from each other, different from the dictionary definition. Here are some examples: "no-go area" meaning politically taboo, "no-go area" meaning segregating schools, "no-go area" meaning unpopular practice. It's like having an article called "Bad" about all the things that people call "bad'. "No-go area" is a phrase in use in English, but not an academic or notable topic in and of itself. – Levivich 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That then means there is a topic, that is discussed in academia (which I think was my basic point, there is a subject here). So all this says is re theme (at best), not delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have many topics that have contested/controversial definitions. We have many articles that are subject to disputes. These are not reasons to delete. The nom appears to want a definitive definition but the real world is messier. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police etc.. the number of sources in the article clearly demonstrate notability. The nom's requirement for academic notability is not a reason to delete, and I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics. One doesn't need to have definitive definitions for a wikipedia article there are multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Anyway clearly passes GNG. -- GreenC 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the basis of my nomination isn't the lack of academic vs non-academic sources; it's that the topic violates WP:SYNTH policy because there are no RSes that treat the topic as a whole–there are only RSes that discuss particular, specific usages of the term, and those usages differ, and should be treated in separate articles, rather than bundled together, because the bundling is SYNTH. I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics Do you have any examples of any non-dictionary RS (academic or otherwise) that talks about how The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police? (As opposed to an RS that talks about just one of those usages.) I've looked and I haven't found anything, but I may have missed it. Because if it's editors who are taking a source about a politician's usage here, and a pundit's usage there, and stringing them together into one article, that's WP:SYNTH. – Levivich 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there are articles that discuss it more broadly such as [19][20][21]. There are so many articles on this topic it would be odd for Wikipedia not to have an article on such a widely reported and known topic. This Georgetown U Masters Thesis contains some interesting sources and discussions.[22] There are 20 pages of RS in the bibliography to draw from, plus the excellent overview and history of the term that could be incorporated via extracting RS. Our article might be better situated about the purported phenomenon of Muslim enclaves in Europe and USA (contextualized as part of Islamaphobia and conservative politics), beginning when Daniel Pipes coined the term in 2006, with the other uses redirected to other articles like military exclusion zones. I don't think AfD is the right place to decide though. Even if we conclude the academic sources reject no-go zones as an Islamaphobic myth [23] it still warrants an article to say as much. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society is plainly evidence in the amount of sourcing, or for example the title of the SPLC article "'No-Go Zones': The Myth That Just Won't Quit".[24] or the article "How The ‘No-Go Zones’ Myth Traveled From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To The Mouths Of GOP Politicians". [25] It has also been discussed in books [26]. Google "no go zone" with "daniel pipes" and the types of RS sources for refactoring the article into proper context will start appearing. -- GreenC 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sources, this exactly illustrates my point. All of those sources are about Muslim no-go zones. That is a totally notable topic, and I would be all for Muslim no-go zone sourced to those excellent sources. But No-go area is not, and does not purport to be, about Muslim no-go zones, it's about all "no go areas". And that term, "no go area", is used by RSes to apply to things other than Muslim no-go zones, such as areas of high crime, or political taboos, or segregated schools, etc., per the above sources. And so, to you, "no go area' means "Muslim no-go zone"; to someone else (dictionaries), it means high-crime areas; to someone else it's an analogy for a taboo, and so on. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones, it should be moved to that title. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones and other uses of the word, we are engaging in SYNTH. In either case, there shouldn't be an article about "no go areas" generally, because we only have RSes about specific uses of that term, and not the general use. Muslim no-go zone is an example of such a specific use. – Levivich 20:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what your saying though the solution of breaking it up is also problematic. The Muslim zone could and should be due to its nature, but the rest there is overlap of type (criminal and military in Ireland), and I think we loose something by scattering them around when they share common terminology. There isn't really a SYNTH problem in practice it's more of a limitation of Wikipedia in dealing with closely related topics, lumpers vs spliters. If there was a glaring OR problem that would be different but there are no controversial OR conclusions being made by housing like-named and like-topic things together, we often do this, and SYNTH is not explicit about topic-level clumping being a problem (unless a case can be made for why it is, not merely citing rules but specific to the subject matter). -- GreenC 01:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four five reasons why your argument ignores available sources:
Preston, Richard (March 14, 2012). The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus. Anchor Books. p. 448. ISBN9780307817655.
Additionally, I would add the sources cited within (yes, I know it's a blog – nonetheless scholarly – and lists and links lots of WP:RSs, and these exist) Pipes, Daniel (January 17, 2015) [November 14, 2006]. "The 751 No-Go Zones of France"(PDF). They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS,
Keep or Split: I understand the accusation of WP:SYNTH, but it feels like a stretch to apply it to a whole topic; I'm not clear what conclusion is being reached that sources don't support and various lists may have trouble meeting this standard. Moreover, WP:Broad-concept articles are generally preferred to WP:Broad-concept disambiguations. However, there does seem to be merit in the argument that the term no-go area is poorly defined; based on the lead (which has ((lead extra info)) issues), there does seem to be distinct types of zones that may be best served with separate articles. —Ost (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This article has a serious scope problem. What can be included here? What is the very definition of the topic? We have some imaginary stuff, some politically polarized stuff, some alleged stuff, and some apparently real stuff. The sourcing? How do you source such a poorly-defined topic? I say, merge it into the dozen articles listed in "See also", something has to be a fit somewhere. Perhaps we would not be here if the topic could be defined or the article scope could be determined, but the time for that was before/during the last edit-war. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim - as it is the article has a lot of coatracking going on with adding places that aren't actual no-go zones like Sweden, Poland, France and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is obviously a "real thing" and is amply sourced. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper. WP:Before. The issues that are listed are reasons and issues to improve the article, not DELETE it.
Keep – as User:7&6=thirteen says, it's clearly a real topic. The article can and should discuss the different definitions, and probably reorganized so it's not merely a list of places that have at some point been called "no-go area". The assertion that reliable sources do not cover no-go areas per se is false. There may or may not be a source discussing the fluid definition of the term, but there are certainly sources that talk about no-go areas. In regards to the recent phenomenon in Sweden for example, there was so much coverage and controversy that Snopes saw fit to check it out. Yes, the article can be split into different types of no-go zones, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted in its current form. If someone wants to create more specific articles, they are welcome to do so. —Ynhockey(Talk) 20:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid broad concept article, although scope would benefit from clarification. This recent book (No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics, University of California Press 2019) might help with sourcing the article, as would this paper about alleged no-go areas in Germany. This book discusses no-go areas in Northern Ireland, starting on page 177. I don't see a reason to split discussion of different types/examples of no-go zones (eg No-go zones in Northern Ireland, Muslim no-go zone claims, no go zones in various countries that can arise because of civil war, insurgency, etc.) into separate articles except for space reasons. Where no go zones exist they are variations on the same theme, places where the authorities cannot or will not access. I do think that there should be a move, No-go area -> No-go zone and No-go zone -> No-go zone (disambiguation) per COMMONNAME. buidhe 07:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion.
This would solve the problems listed as purported justification for deletion.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey's example RS is about high-crime areas avoided by police (which the source says don't actually exist, at least in Sweden) [37]
Buidhe's example RSes are about war zones [38], "areas dominated by neo-Nazis" in Germany [39], and urban areas in Northern Ireland where state security forces were unable to operate between 1969–1972 [40].
Liftarn says "trim... places that aren't actual no-go zones" but doesn't provide any RS to tell us what is and what is not an "actual no-go zone"
I think the premise of my nomination has been proven: no RS discusses all of these things in one article or book; rather, every RS discusses a different type of no-go area. Because no RS combines them, for Wikipedia to combine them would be SYNTH. We would be stringing together different things–like "Muslim no-go zones", neo-Nazi "no-go zones" in Germany, Sensitive urban zones in France, war zones in the developing world, high-crime areas, segregated areas, and saying they are related, when NO RS says these things are related.
Ost316 points to WP:Broad-concept articles, which "no go area" would seem to be, except that we have no RS about the broad concept. The examples given in WP:Broad-concept articles are articles like History of France and Supreme court. You'll find RSes talking about the History of France, generally, and comparing different nations' supreme courts, but we don't have an RS that talks about war zones AND high-crime areas AND high-Nazi areas in Germany AND loyalist enclaves in Northern Ireland AND political taboos, etc. etc. We don't have an RS that makes that connection, so it's inappropriate for us to make that connection.
There are some common tests that can be used to determine whether an article can potentially be considered a broad concept article. One of these is "expert" test: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [name of page], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? For example, although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" an icthyologist could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be a "Mercury" expert, or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base, along with chemistry. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and legal training, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball.
"No go area" is exactly like "Mercury" and "battery", both of which are disambiguation pages. We don't have a single article that talks about Mercury the Greek god, mercury the element, and Mercury the planet. We don't have a single article that discusses battery the energy source, battery the crime, and battery the group of artillery, all in one article. Those are disparate things that have a common name, and so are "no-go areas". It's unlikely a single person would be an expert in Muslim no-go zones, Northern Ireland no-go zones, high crime areas, war zones in the developing world, political taboos, the rise of neo-Nazis in Germany, and so on.
If there are no objections – particularly from the split/merge !voters Ost316, Elizium23, and Visite fortuitement prolongée – I'm happy to withdraw this nom and pursue dabbing-and-splitting the article on the talk page. Thanks to everyone for their feedback. – Levivich 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or we re-jig the article to be about the different interpretations and usages of the term.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the last AFD was a snow keep. There was no reason to renominate this, and I question the competence of anyone who would nominate this. How is this not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Article needs improvement. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confident that this article warrants inclusion. RSs exist Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable marketing executive, pr fluff piece. All the sources are either interviews, press releases or otherwise not actual coverage of Hammer. (Also not to be confused with George Hammer.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I completely see where the nominator is coming from, but some consideration toward improving the article should be taken. It would appear that the subject is notable to an extent, the execution of the article was simply done very poorly. If attempts to improve the article fail, I would certainly !vote delete in subsequent discussions per WP:NOTPROMO. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that it's PR fluff, it's lacking in any meaningful, in-depth and independent sourcing. I couldn't find anything to support the supposed "notability" of the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to being a promotional article, it should be noted that Draft:George Hammer III was twice rejected after being submitted by the article's creator, with the seciond rejection coming yeasterday. This is a clear attempt to game the system by circumventing the AfC process. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep George Hammer III is the Chief Content Officer of IBM. He is responsible for the content operations of a global organization with over 350,000 employees (2018) and operating revenue of 55.4 billion dollars (2019). That seems quite notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.187.170 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — 208.251.187.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Which implies he has a job and is wealthy, not that he is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep George Hammer III is a marketer, and entrepreneur. Him having been invited to appear on tv twice (Cheddar live) discussing his leadership on a documentary film about climate change which has won numerous awards, and on CNBC re: the exclusive CMO growth council sets him apart from the standard person looking for fame that submits to wikipedia. Additionally, AdWeek recognizing him as an innovator in the field of content marketing (TOP 11 in 2019) is an achievement that very few can ascribe to themselves. If one google's George Hammer, all the entries on page 1 are of IBM's GH, not of the GH that exists on wikipedia as George Hammer. As such, it would make sense to have a page on Wikipedia that details a person's life that most people would encounter on the internet if searched for by their given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtake5 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Djtake5 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of George Hammer 3 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete. Per nom. No good-quality RS with SIGCOV on him; mostly mentions in low-grade trade-sites (given his role, there are lots of trade-sites that would give him coverage to win business off him); feels like his WP article would be the most important "plank" in his notability, whereas it should be the other way around. The clear WP:PROMO, and clear WP:UPE aspect to this BLP is also very distasteful (e.g. his "editors" have inserted every possible scrap of RS into this BLP). Britishfinance (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article contains signs of bias, including promotion of social media and website features. Journal does not appear to be peer reviewed and does not have an ISSN or a DOI. XVDC (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam (WP:CSD#G11). How could this have survived for so long? I found an ISSN in Worldcat (2397-6764), but MIAR lists nothing. Not indexed anywhere, no independent sources: misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than long term spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 5 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.
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I wasn't able to find any coverage on them outside of the trivial apple music, soundcloud, youtube links. The existing sources in the article are poor and don't actually verify the content. They also just released their first EP We Swervin, which hasn't charted or received significant coverage and I believe itself fails WP:NALBUM. SamCordestalk 08:00, 6 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) 21:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This fails to establish notability. The two reception links are trivial Top X lists that should be given no weight at all. TTN (talk) 15:16, 5 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.
Keep - Let this page stay. This page was started to detail Ulik's kind just like they have pages for the Giants, Elves, and Dwarves. Plus, the Asgard page doesn't even list the different types of either species there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asgard (comics) - There appears to be no coverage in reliable, secondary sources of any significance, so it fails the WP:GNG. The topic is already covered in the target article, so a merge is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Claims about his achievements are sourced to his own marketing copy. The award his book has won comes from an organisation that itself does not appear to be notable (there is no article here nor in the Dutch-language Wikipedia). I can't find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ...discospinstertalk 14:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. In addition, I suspect that the original author might have an undisclosed conflict of interest, as the image of the subject is marked as the author's own work. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely promotional bio that fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick check of the Belgian press brings up too little to establish notability (there are rather more hits for a manager at AB InBev, who seems to be a different person with the same name). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. In addition, I don't like the sideways photo. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 00:47, 6 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to Judge Dredd (character) an article I just created as a split. It's usually mentioned with regards to Dredd himself, even if it is used by other Judges. As a kind of signature weapon, it can get a mention in his article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:48, 7 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.
Delete for being all PLOT and an unlikely search term. This topic is already adequately summarized in Mega-City One#Government with "Its ruler is the Chief Judge". – sgeurekat•c 14:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are in-universe. No real world information. TTN (talk) 22:49, 7 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. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I find that it does appear to be a neighborhood in Bourne, but there's nothing that says anything like what the article says, or for that matter anything beyond passing references, real estate listings, and clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neighborhoods are not notable without RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monument Beach, Massachusetts#Beach. This article isn't about a neighborhood, it's about this beach. An actual beach with water and sand. Monument Beach, Massachusetts is about the CDP of the same name. The beach is not notable, but I added a few sentences about it so there is a redirect target. MB 04:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui雲水 10:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks all notability. She is named (without any further information) in very few sources, and has recieved no significant attention at all. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added another source, "The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia" that lists her on twelve pages. Also added a few films from the Lonesome Luke series of films. Also added an alternate spelling of her last name: Mulleady. I don't have time this morning to search for her maiden name. Netherzone (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is using primary sources (such as the US census). This is a violation of the very way Wikipedia is supposed to exist. Wikipedia is not a place to publish ones person primary research. It is a way to publish things that have been covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be sourced to priary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines - searching Newspapers.com shows no results at all (even with name variants). The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia seems to list her as a cast member of the films named, which does not match what the contemporary directories say, and doesn't help to establish notability. It's possible that someone might research and write about her in the future, but at present there is no coverage in secondary sources apart from The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia, which is not enough by itself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After an in-depth search on her name and variations thereof, I cannot find anything else other than the Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia to establish notability, no news mentions from the time period, or film history articles. Maybe mention her on the film pages where she was the editor and there is a citation to back it up, if that seems relevant (?) Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wow, they had fancruft back in the 19th century? Sandstein 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this fictional weapon salvagable, so that it can pass WP:NFICTION or another GNG related policy? There is a section about some recent experimental US weapon but the connection to this is rather WP:OR ish... but since weapons are 'cool', maybe this could be rewritten to be about that new gadget with a section about inspiration from this fictional concept? But I don't see very good sources to help... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough and no matter how much you do to an article it will always fail WP:GNG as per WP:ARTN. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 12:43, 5 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.
Can this be salvaged either by improving description of real world concepts or literary ones? Or should be just redirect this to Weapons in science fiction (or maybe a disambig or sorts given the concept of Plasma cutting and other concepts mentioned in the article)? (Also note the prior AfD from 2015 was 'delete', and this recreated article is hardly an improvement)Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not the same article that was deleted in 2015. The "first" AfD was for another deleted article at this title; it states that a different article in a similar scope was then moved to this title (see the history, especially the move diff [41]; this article has a long history dating back to 2004). Also, AfD is not cleanup: it's not clear why this article should be deleted, and outstanding maintenance tags do not alone prompt deletion. It looks like the nominator has not completed WP:BEFORE, so speedy keep until/unless a more thorough rationale is presented. ComplexRational (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weapons_in_science_fiction#Plasma_weaponry as a plausible search term. Nothing should be merged, however, as none of the content here is sourced at all, which makes it seem to be WP:OR. As mentioned, the article could likely be restored if rewritten to be about the real-life concept, but until that is done, the article space can serve as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV production company. Could not find any WP:IRS searching either the internet or via a ProQuest offline article search. Fails WP:COMPANY. Cabrils (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a reliable source with a Google search in no time at all.[43] Gary Reilly Productions was very well known in the '80s and '90s, mainly due to the success of Hey Dad..!. There was some more recent coverage surrounding the trial of the star of that program in 2014. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend: Just for clarity, the link of a 'reliable source' is to a Screen Australia listing of productions by this company. How does that qualify as making the production company notable? On that basis wouldn't every single TV production company in the world have a claim to being in Wikipedia? You might be correct but my understanding of WP:CREATIVE is that significantly more is required? And I also don't understand how being incidentally in the news (not substantial coverage) because of the trial of a lead actor in the series Hey Dad..! satisfies the requirements for notability for the production company? Again, I also found this reference you have mentioned, and others, but in my opinion they are not substantial reliable sources as required by WP:NOTE. I am aware of your experience here so I'm just seeking clarity so I understand the guidelines better. Cabrils (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you could not find any reliable sources. I was merely commenting that I found one very quickly. That said, GRP was notable in the 1980s when most of its activities occurred. Unfortunately, that was pre-Internet so you won't find a lot of online sources today. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything but very minor and essentially routine coverage, ie, it verfiably existed. At least one of its productions, Hey Dad..!, was very notable but notability is not inherited. Aoziwe (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Why is it still here? Because there is much more spam then we can deal with, and for years some spam was allowed due to inclusionist bias like "Lovercraft website? ILIKEIT since Wikipedia editors are geeks, geeks like Lovercraft, so let's keep it and hope it becomes more important in x years down the road". Now we have grown up (well, some of us did), so it's time to prune such follies of the old. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 5 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) 08:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ice cream vendor who got an obituary in a local newspaper, I think this fails WP:NBIO. Previous AfD was about a different person, I think (a non-notable footballer). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article itself is crap, but a quick search of "Sammy Lunn" Adelaide means he's probably notable, he even got an MBE (not automatically notable, but not a small feat.) [44] And his funeral procession is in the government archives [45] and noted in diaries [46]. Will require historical research, but no reason to believe he's not notable - maybe draftify the thing? SportingFlyerT·C 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nominator. We do not keep articles on Ice cream vendors and an MBE does not automatically confer notability. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a local character but that doesn't qualify him for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There are policy based justifications for both delete and keep participants with some keep participants arguing that this topic is qualitatively different than other D&D topics. The delete editors argue that there are not the kind of out of universe sourcing necessary to establish notability. Given the already exhaustive discussion, as well as general fatigue expressed by some participants to D&D at AfD, I am not confident that relisting will make consensus clearer. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional creature, no evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG, PRIMARY sources only, pure WP:PLOT, BEFORE does not show better sources. One would think the "dragon" of D&D would be more likely to be notable - but it is not, not anymore than the dungeon part is (keep in mind that nobody is disputing the notability of general concepts of dragon, nor dungeon). Anyway, what we have here is a PLOT summary, publication history referenced to PRIMARY sources (1st edition had x types of dragons, 2nd edition add y more, etc.) and a pathetic reception section that relies on For Dummies and a SR list of monsters, neither of which provides any analysis beyond saying that dragons are high level monsters which need some effort and high level PCs to defeat, doh, what a revelation. WP is not a gaming guide. Unless someone can find sources that discuss the proper significance and reception of D&D dragons (such as how they inspired other writers and game developers, how they are analyzed from the literary theory, etc.) I don't think the topic is notable. List of subspecies and which edition they were created plus 'sky is blue' reception saying that they are pretty but big and scary monsters is not enough for an encyclopedia. PS. I'll repeat that the concept of Dragon in D&D is not much more notable than the concept of Dungeon (Dungeons & Dragons), and fortunately nobody created an article on that; Dungeon states "Dungeons are common elements in fantasy literature, related tabletop, and video games. The most famous examples are the various Dungeons & Dragons media." and this is about as much as we should say about D&D dragons in the article on dragon, which could be a redirect for this per WP:PRESERVE. PPS. One could also argue that we should have article about Star (Star Wars) since the word appears in the name of this big franchise... :P Seriously, the point is that dragons are even less central to D&D than dungeons, since while pretty much all D&D campaigns feature dungeons, much fewer feature actual dragons... . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is fancruft, as I mentioned in an earlier AfD. Just because it's in the name doesn't make the in-universe concept individually notable. Fails WP:GNG as well as being WP:ALLPLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blank vote I don't think I am able to judge if this particular article should be deleted or not, but... I would like to point out that there are a large number of WP-articles about D&D monsters. Should they be nominated for deletion too? RhinoMind (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinoMind: Most will be, some have already. But experience shows that they need to be discussed one by one, as group nominations are problematic (some people object pro forma to them and ask for one by one discussions). Feel free to PROD or AfD anything you think should be discussed for deletion or redirection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the info. Nah, I'm not a deletion-guy. My strategy would be to guide and redirect editors to the right fora, if I think something is misplaced. RhinoMind (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating everything at once would cause a WP:TRAINWRECK if there happens to be one that is actually notable. Or there is just the assertion that there is. And no doubt prompt a huge discussion about wanting to delete everything wholesale just because the nominator doesn't like it instead of judge everything by its own merits.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is good per WP:PRESERVE. Unfortunately, some people dispute a redirect, and then we have to go through the deletion route, which IMHO too often uses hard deletion instead of soft deletion (redirect). But that's what we get when people dispute redirects, sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why anyone would consider that people, who have rejected a proposal for deletion in favor of an AfD discussion, would prefer a total deletion instead of a redirect in case the AfD did not end with "Keep". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, there's too much "plot". But there are secondary sources: As far as I understand from the description and comments, on Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, that is an independent secondary source. So is ...for Dummies and the two online lists. There is also some more information on the dragons' origins out there, not yet in the article. Also, the concept was taken over by a second publisher, Paizo. Daranios (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article from Aadry DeVarque has been included now. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question This articles has huge WP:GAMEGUIDE problems, but I think the reception section might be useful for a "Monsters in D&D" article and be merged there. However, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons doesn't even link to Dragons. Does anyone know of a better parent article? – sgeurekat•c 08:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something which is central to one of the best-known games ever created. Very clearly notable. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable (especially potentially notable topics being prodded to attempt to get them deleted without discussion), as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've added one peer-reviewed source to the lead which mentions D&D dragons specifically and there are many more out there. I'll add a few more over the next day or two. A total of three new sources (two academic, the other the key moral panic text of the 1990s) to the lead. Tag for improvement and retain. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but this isn't an encyclopaedia article. If we were to reduce what has been discussed about this in reliable secondary sources we might have a mere blurb. The vast majority of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE and even if it weakly passes WP:GNG, WP:NOT overrides WP:GNG especially per WP:INDISCRIMINATE #1 - the article barely summarises the topic using primary sources and is of no use to anyone who doesn't play this game. SportingFlyerT·C 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All this is, is a massive extension of of Monster Manual errata. This, minus the vast fluff about tungsten dragons and such, and Dragon (Middle-earth) should be combined with others if out there into a Dragons in fiction or similar. ValarianB (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless substantial sources are provided. I feel they deserve some attention somewhere, but I don't know where. Something like "Mythology of D&D" presented from a real world perspective would probably be a good topic, maybe like Mythology of Carnivàle. TTN (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I feel this just barely passes the threshold for notability, though it needs to be entirely rewritten as all info currently on the page is considered inappropriate under WP:GAMEGUIDE. Devonian Wombattalk 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this isn't the best article, but there are secondary sources (even if they are tricky to search for...), and dragons in D&D are surely some of the most important dragons in pop culture, making their way into discussions about dragons more broadly (of which there are plenty). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want Obviously notable, but I'm not going to spend 40 hours making this a GA to protect it. Please state your real motivations with each nom, such as "I hate fiction articles". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peregrine Fisher, it apparently worked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menzoberranzan (2nd nomination), but should that much effort even have to be necessary to get an article kept? And even if we had a team of people with the same level of skill at finding sources and integrating them into articles, it would still be overwhelming at the rate they are being put up for deletion. I don't want good editors to burn out on one or two articles when that's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with your bare hands. :) BOZ (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination itself reads like a WP:POINTy essay. I and other editors have added at least four new secondary sources to the article so let's hope the closer reviews this. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the sources added first, shall we? 1)A geocities list of sources, pretty meta and pretty low qualities (c'mon, geocities?). 2) An academic source that mentions D&D dragons in passing "Dungeons & Dragons allows players to fight its fictional dragons (Tiamat being one of the most notable) and "slay their psychic dragons" as well." Well, that's is WP:SKYISBLUE, and the entire sentence with its ref should be removed for being pretty much pointless; the dragons are not discussed in-depth here, they are just a passing example; that D&D may be used for psychotherapist purposes is interesting, what monsters are used in related adventures is irrelevant and doesn't make them encyclopedic unless there is an in-depth discussion of 'why dragons make better tools for therapy than zombies or goblins', and I don't see this. 3) A book, with no page number, used to reference a claim that " D&D Dragons, specifically their "dungeon ecology," have implications for the literary theory of fantasy writing." That is actually more interesting, but no page number suggest this comes from a blurb or such, more in depth analysis of this source is needed, but it is promising (it's not like I want to delete it for fun, if we can show notability I'd be happy to see this rescued). 4) Another claim "D&D dragons also featured as targets of the moral panic surrounding the game." that is interesting, but again sourced to books with no page numbers. 5) a reference added to in-universe plot, so not relevant for our consideration. Now, if you can properly reference 3) and 4) with page numbers and show they are more than in-passing, we may be able to turn this around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3), 4): Um, you are referring to Dungeons and dragons and philosophy, The truth about Dungeons & dragons and Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds, right? A page number is already given for each of these, isn't it? 1) I have changed the link to another site (possibly the original), which is also old but not geocities, so maybe that's more to your liking. Is "meta" a bad thing here? And I don't know about low quality - is the article erroneous?
There is still Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry which seems to be a non-fiction third party source.
I also would ask to include the sources of the split-off articles Chromatic dragon and Metallic dragon with regard to the notability discussion. There is at least one additional secondary source there, as I have added from an Envoyer article. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or TNT delete The in-universe descriptions and game data currently in the article at present are relatively well-cited to "quasi-secondary" sources (books, magazines, etc. that provide somewhat critical "real-world" coverage of the topic but that are still published by TSR, Wizards, or some fan publisher with a subordinate relationship to the company that owns the property); my gut tells me that the topic is notable enough to merit its own article (certainly moreso than any other individual DnD monster), as long as articles on fictional topics are still something we are doing and are prioritizing over articles on classical Japanese poets that I am apparently forced to work on all on my own. I personally would prefer that we had a centralized discussion about whether we allow these kinds of articles rather than the present ad hoc AFD nomination of random single articles, but if this is how we are doing it then I'm going to have to go with my gut on each individual topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Having lived the D&D craze of the 1980s, I can assure you that dragons are a big part of Dungeons and Dragons and here is what I found with a New York Times search: [47][48]Samboy (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep, with no prejudice against a renomination. If there's a textbook example of how NOT to propose an article for deletion, this should be it. It's sarcastic, contemptuous and unnecessarily antagonistic. Whether or not the notability arguments are valid, this is the literal definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep or merge. I think "PRIMARY sources only" is incorrect: As far as I understand from the description and comments on Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, that is an independent secondary source. A Practical Guide to Dragons seems to be a primary but independent source whatever that's worth. And the brass dragon featured (strangely) in the Dungeons & Dragons controversies taken up by another independent source, Dangerous Games. That said, I am opposed to deletion, but would be fine with either keeping the article or a reasonable merging and redirecting into Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Daranios (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable (especially potentially notable topics being prodded to attempt to get them deleted without discussion), as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:PLOT (which refers to "Summary-only descriptions of [creative] works" at large), and WP:OR (e.g. "Physically, the bronze dragon is quite fierce in appearance, despite its good nature."). All present sources are for trivial publication info. Since even its parent article likely shouldn't exist, this is just excessive. – sgeurekat•c 12:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot. Not a shred of analysis. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I am not sure there is enough to justify a free-standing article, but any important content on metallic dragons surely belongs in the article on dragons more broadly. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total WP:GNG failing plotcruft, nothing to merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Personally I believe this is a notable enough topic to remain as a standalone article given the notability and popularity of the game, but even if it is not, no useful purpose is served in deleting information that can be merged elsewhere. This recent swathe of attempted deletions of articles on fantasy and science fiction topics makes me uncomfortable (especially potentially notable topics being prodded to attempt to get them deleted without discussion), as it suggests that some editors are having fun getting rid of valid content, which is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about. We delete rubbish and very minority interest material. We do not usually delete material that is central to major literary works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) if that stays, otherwise Delete. The article itself is nothing more than a bloated how-to-play guide mixed with absurd amounts of detail better suited for a fan wiki Devonian Wombattalk 11:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is entirely a game guide/character plot and is of no encyclopaedic use to anyone who doesn't play this game. Fine with redirection if a suitable target is found. SportingFlyerT·C 12:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot. Not a shred of analysis. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I am not sure there is enough to justify a free-standing article, but any important content on chromatic dragons surely belongs in the article on dragons more broadly. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Current reception sourcing is trivial. It does not establish notability for the grouping. TTN (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another secondary source. Please take it into consideration with regard to the deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:GNG-failing plotcruft, nothing to merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. – sgeurekat•c 08:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. The use of names by Elon Musk does not grant this list notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- mostly unsourced fancruft. Wikia is a better home for it. ReykYO! 07:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long time ago in a Wikipedia far, far more lenient, this stuff was tolerated. Not any more. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot. Not a shred of analysis. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:38, 5 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.
User:Onel5969 wants to waste my (and your) time. Citation in article Arizona Place Names p.375 says "St. John's Chapel or Mission....This is an Indian Mission school... Place is also called Komatke." So I redirected the page to Komatke, Arizona and added this content about the church/mission, now called Saint John the Baptist Parish Laveen (map), and he reverted it. Unclear why this would need to be a separate page when this is not a separate place. Reywas92Talk 02:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect not a populated place - a potential historical boarding school at Komatke, Arizona. This is not a reliable database to source WP:GEOLAND stubs from. Would vote merge, but the mission is already included in the Komatke article. [49] A reminder to the nominator to WP:AGF. SportingFlyerT·C 02:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. There is no indication in the source that this officially recognized populated place is the same as the CDP, Komatke. Rather, the source shows that the populated place at one time was known as Komatke, long before CDP's even existed. But the personal attack is noted.Onel5969TT me 02:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS also lists Saint Johns Mission as a variant name on its entry for Komatke. The designation of the CDP is irrelevant: while they "generally include one officially designated but currently unincorporated community," "The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status," so an article on a CDP should focus on the community and specify the data is statistical and not definitively in- or exclusive of something. It's quite clear that the mission is not a distinct place from this community. Also note the listing of Saint Johns Indian School at the same location. Reywas92Talk 09:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on it doesn't. Here is the GNIS entry to the CDP, which is where you redirected this article. The entry you show above actually gives more weight to the notability of the populated place, St. Johns Mission, which is also known as Komatke, a populated place from where the future CDP garnered it's name, existing as both a populated place and a CDP. Onel5969TT me 01:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So then a redirect to Komatke would indeed be the correct result, if they are the same place. SportingFlyerT·C 01:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and to say that the USGS source is not reliable is something that is a drastic shift in RS. Onel5969TT me 02:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS source is only unreliable in the sense that it doesn't adequately distinguish between a legally recognised populated place and a mobile home park or, in this case, a boarding school/church mission (see my newspapers.com source if you have access.) It's fine for WP:V purposes, but not for the purposes of creating articles. Furthermore, Komatke still exists. SportingFlyerT·C 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the GNIS is not entirely reliable, certainly not enough to mass-produce articles off of. Again, the GNIS is merely a context-free database of names and features that have been on a map, it gives us nothing else beyond existence at some point and elevation at a coordinate. "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." It is not "legal recognition", and it is not something to rely on alone. Its identification of "populated places" is not the same as GEOLAND#1 (it has a separate designation for incorporated places ("Civil") and CDPs ("Census"), and that is not always accurate. An error I've found is listing Allenstown Elementary School as a populated place – this propagates to the most recent topo map that puts it in place of Allenstown, New Hampshire, and the school is actually in nearby Suncook (map). Other schools incorrectly marked as populated places include Birney Day School (map), Farm School (map), Field Schoolhouse, Manchester School (map), and Corner Campbell School.
Another issue is failure to update places that no longer exist with "(historical)": Miles City, Florida (map) disappeared completely decades ago yet for some reason it still appears on topo quads!. There are also a number of named river crossings listed as populated places, such as Santio Crossing, UT (map) and Upper Crossing, ID (topo and GMap). Grand Ecaille, Louisiana is listed as a populated place, despite actually being an abandoned sulphur factory. Sure, at one point it was a place with a population of workers, but I hope you see why it's frustrating to see mass-production of articles saying "is a populated place" or "is an unincorporated community" based on nothing but this database. And I haven't even gotten to your windmills yet! Reywas92Talk 09:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Komatke where this historical school is already mentioned. The school was listed on a county highway map and then sucked into GNIS - this is not the process by which a place is "legally recognized". Fails GEOLAND, insufficient in-depth sources to meet GNG and to write an encyclopedic article. MB 04:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems likely to me that the Franciscan mission could be Wikipedia-notable, as a historical item. "The name is taken from the mission school founded by the Franciscans in 1894.", with footnote to Arizona Place Names book. St. Christopher's Episcopal Mission in southern Utah is notable. The Franciscan mission at Our Lady of Fatima Church, in Chinle, Arizona, is notable. Both of those have substantial artifacts in the form of buildings, now listed on the National Register, though. User:Onel5969, lemme know elsewhere if you'd like to work on an article about this, if any sources can be found. --Doncram (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks Doncram - but at this point, not sure I wish to work on this article. I'm a bit disillusioned by the lack of understanding of the first pillar of WP's five pillars, which is that a function of WP is to act as a Gazetteer. And the lack of understanding that while flawed, the GNIS database is the official database of the USGS, the entity responsible for designating geographic features of the U.S., which satisfies the definition of legally recognized. Not to mention the personal attacks. Methinks this behavior borders on WP:Wikihounding (see this edit). I'll have to think on that a bit. Onel5969TT me 01:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done a Newspapers.com search which has almost the full Arizona Republic, the local Phoenix paper, and didn't find too much. I'd be open to restoring this as a non-populated place if enough other sources are found, but I think it's currently well-represented on the Komatke page. SportingFlyerT·C 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969TT me 02:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect preserving history. The nominator is obviously comfortable with a redirect, and since this has been listed in GNIS, deleting it altogether makes no sense. Samboy (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft and Wikia material. Fails GNG and unencyclopedic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't be sure, but I suspect that this article may be redundant with some of Wikipedia's other coverage of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In particular, I note that every single character who was ever a main character of the show (based on the list at List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Main characters) was also a member of the Scooby Gang at some time or another, based on the list in this article. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy with main article (doesn't need more than 1-2 sentences there) and for WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeurekat•c 08:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a comment to this and other TV-related articles been submitted to AfD recently. If the result is "Delete", please instead turn it into a redirect, as (a) the term is a valid search term and (b) leaving redlinks behind or worse, just removing links from other articles, actually harms the wiki. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure plot. Not a shred of analysis. Fails NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially redundant to the main Buffy article. --GentlemanGhost(séance) 14:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, this is largely redundant to the actual character list for the series, and the bits of information that are unique to this article are not sourced to reliable, secondary sources. I have no problem with it being recreated as a Redirect to said character list, though, as mentioned above. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not really suitable as a redirect since per the comments there are multiple Sedwick Counties. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced since being created 13 years ago. Does not appear to be a particularly notable event. What I could find is all very routine coverage a la "the fair is happening again like it does every year". Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a county fair can be notable I suppose, but I don't see any coverage other than "and finally" type of stories. Plus, the news search introduces more "and finally" type coverage based on a fair in Sedgewick County, Colorado. Further, article as written seems promotional in nature and is also a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 5 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) 08:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Initiative (Buffy the Vampire Slayer organization)[edit]
This is a fictional organization that doesn't seem to have received significant coverage and especially in reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Please also see the contested PRODKostas20142 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Storylines for being all WP:PLOT. In my experience, fictional organizations rarely ever need a stand-alone article, but usually deserve a brief dict-def-like description somewhere as a search term and to establish context. #Storylines in the main articles serves that purpose already. – sgeurekat•c 09:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. There seems to be no good reason to make this a redlink or wipe its history. How much content should actually be merged is a question on which I have no strong opinion; it might even be none (equivalent to a redirect !vote, but without the "delete" part). --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 6 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) 08:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in a professional game and went to a small college as a linebacker. The article stated he was still a member of the New Orleans VooDoo when I found it, but that team folded four years ago and he hadn't been on the roster in eight years. Eagles24/7(C) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches turn up only passing mentions in game coverage, not the sort of significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 5 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.