< 31 October	2 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFest[edit]

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

Does not appear to have taken place since 2007, and arguably not a notable festival even then. I cannot find any online sources, there are no sources cited, and the original author now appears to be absent from Wikipedia. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Juneteenth is notable, this festival is not, and this article is more a coatrack for the former than coverage of the latter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some local coverage of this local festival but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crafthalls of Pern[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced fictional minutia. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't even play any significant role in what I've read of the series; just part of the background. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. is not referenced ,fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaul Nurm[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:POLITICIAN, has never been elected to any legislative body nor has he held any state office. The article was created prematurely when he became leader of the Estonian Free Party, a small protest party. 2019 elections their result was 1.2% and he stepped down as the party leader, annulling any chance that he might became notable some day. Klõps (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being leader of a minor political party is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG — but if he never actually served in the Riigikogu then he doesn't clear the former, and this isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over the latter. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected politicians are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor politician. SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor Estonian politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fringe party candidate who once got a bit over 1,300 votes. Really? Bearian (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Van Der Hoeven[edit]

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

Not a notable actress or dancer - notability is not inherited from relatives. Only reference is IMDB. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a student of a significant person does not inherently make one significant, and her roles do not pass the significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary chorus line dancer, this is mere puffery about her vague associations with whom she worked. There's no mention of her in the official history of the Martha Graham company/. In fact, she was last billed by Martha Graham herself. She did dance in Jose Limon's company but she was one of many in his group. The coverage of her, let's say, is not significant outside of her own self-hagiography. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:34, 8 November 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 was that the subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Greaves[edit]

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

Article is entirely primary-sourced. It's been flagged for a few months on the talk page, and the author has responded. This isn't really workable for a BLP, and it needs third-party sources to exist. WP:BEFORE shows literally zero third-party coverage of Greaves. Director of an institute may pass WP:NPROF - if that's acceptable with literally zero third-party sources, then the article needs to be cut to a stub evidencing just that, and not serve as a lengthy advertisement/resume for the subject. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with a 861 GS cites in the very low cited field of philosophy there may just be a pass of WP:Prof#C1. It would have been better to have waited longer to have avoided any allegation of WP:Too soon. It is nonsense to say there are no third party sources: there are some 861 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:Prof#C1 with research. WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the user who created and wrote most of the article. My reasons for thinking the article should not be deleted are given in the talk page. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the entry, I'd be happy to try to implement them. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has sources which demonstrate notability. Wm335td (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1; the primary sources are mostly for mundane biographical claims like dates of employment. It's not our job to investigate whether Oxford's Faculty of Philosophy is for some reason lying about who works there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to Oxford's own website, she's a full professor at one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the world. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I definitely don't think that merely being a full professor at Oxford is enough by itself for notability; certainly it doesn't pass any WP:PROF criterion except by some special pleading that somehow Oxford is different. But I think that most Oxford full professors should likely be notable by some other criterion; otherwise, why would Oxford have chosen them? In this case I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation counts are likely enough (in a low citation field) for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD - relisting there. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goonie Tunes[edit]

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

Goonie Tunes literally does not exist in any shape or form, rendering this redirect completely unnecessary. IceWalrus236 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baronies of Gwynedd (fictional)[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this fictional universe topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. @Power~enwiki: Can I bundle this AFD with Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional), which is on the same line as this? ミラP 01:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Working our way down from fictional planets of more notable series. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish(Jessica Mauboy Song)[edit]

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

Could not find any sources. Appears to duplicate Selfish (Jessica Mauboy song), which itself redirects to Hilda (album). From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. A better redirect already exists as pointed out by the nominator, and I do not see any value in turning this one into a redirect given the mistake in its title and how unlikely someone would type it into the search bar. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dont meet WP:NSONG. The song has just been released no long and no review from indepedent, reliable sources would be found. Song has not been in top position of any important chart. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it appropriate to move an article to draft space during the middle of an AfD discussion? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, unless an admin intends on doing a procedural close right afterwards with explanation. I've moved this back to mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any value for this one. The properly formatted Selfish (Jessica Mauboy song) is redirecting to the album. No charting results to show independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 4 November 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. So Why 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarke Studio LLC[edit]

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

This is a an advertisement written by someone close to the subject. I cleaned up the weasel-word-filled hyperbole of the first two paragraphs, but then nothing noteworthy remains; therefore delete because it is not noteworthy. noclador (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled the company and it turns out the owner is Irakli Chikvaidze and the article was written by User:Irakli Chikvaidze. noclador (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, referenced to unreliable listings (mainly IMDb) of films in whose production they have been involved. My searches are not finding substantial coverage of the company in reliable 3rd party sources. The best is probably a short item in The Financial [1], which at least places the company in the context of its wider group, but I think remains routine coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could find was some tangential coverage in Variety magazine. Lacks RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Simas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Teresa Simas

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

There are no sources; Does not appear to have done anything especially notable; Article was created by a single editor who had no other edits —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing an article only to the subjects own website does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the red links are a dead giveaway that this is not a person associated with anything notable. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Crack[edit]

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

Local nickname for a type of steak served by one restaurant, no indication of encyclopaedic notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and found only local coverage and crowdsourced mentions. I'm sure this is delicious, but it's only locally notable. --valereee (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable food vendor using Wikipedia for advertising with neologism "Cardiff Crack". Per WP:PLUG article should be deleted. I have already removed the same non-notable content placed into the article Tri-tip by apparently the same editor. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because of the nauseating picture it uses. More to the point, fails GNG, none of the sources actually support the content, etc. etc.Hydromania (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Welsh cuisine is notorious not for this one dish, but is for many others. It's never been featured in any cookbook nor even any documentary review of cooking. A look online reveals several mentions in travel and tourism guides about this dish in California, but they are all passing mentions. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Looked at the four sources provided in the article (used the WaybackMachine for the San Diego Entertainer link), and they don't provide near enough to meet the WP:GNG. The Ranch & Coast article doesn't even mention it at all. No significant coverage found elsewhere. — Satori Son 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is basically advertising for a local, non-notable food product. Hog Farm ([[User talk:Hog Farm|talk))) 17:51, 8 November 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) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earldoms of Gwynedd (fictional)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DDelete as 100% in-universe fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unsourced fancruft. The Baronies of Gwynedd (fictional) article is similarly problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki: And also Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional). If possible, these two should be bundled together in either an AFD or with this one. ミラ P 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rast (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

To save some time on AFDs, I'm bundling these together, as they were both introduced in the same book, are using the same two primary sources as the only references, and are equally unnotable. Neither of them have any reliable, secondary sources that would indicate any sort of notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Neither establishes notability. TTN (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Lots of D&D AfDs lately. WP:ATD. A merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters is possible. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I played DnD for years and am still a weekly viewer of TFS at the Table, and neither of these names even ring any bells for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Non-notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both-- no independent notability and bad sourcing. Reyk roaming (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither of the fictional creatures has any sort of significance in real world. Not a very active user (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boccob[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Despite the poor condition of the target article, the broader topic of religion in D&D is one that has attracted independent attention; additionally, such lists are broadly equivalent to other fictional character lists widely maintained for major franchises. But I agree that there's no value to an independent article with this level of depth. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The page gets about 40 views per day and is a plausible search term. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities though said article is likely to be deleted anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities like all of the other deities... then we can delete the deities page as fancruft. Sigh. This is just not stuff suited for an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 4 November 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. Clearly meets GNG by consensus; no need to prolong (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bihari sentiment[edit]

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

Most of the sources refer to discrimination against North Indian labourers in general and not just Biharis. A lot of the stuff is original research connecting Bihars relative poverty with the discrimination despite the sources themselves making no such connection. It seems to be written as if it’s somebodies personal essay. Ideally, the page should be either deleted or renamed to “Anti-North India sentiment”. The remaining news sources could be merged into Bihar or Biharis. I’m new to this and used the twinkle tool so apologies if this isn’t formatted correctly. YaRaabAlHind (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. YaRaabAlHind (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. YaRaabAlHind (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. YaRaabAlHind (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. YaRaabAlHind (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t agree with the nominator. I haven’t looked at all 59 sources but the ones I have checked are all specifically about Biharis and not just North Indians generally. The topic is clearly notable on this basis. Some of the incidents in the article are a bit weak in terms of how far we can be sure they are really instances of anti-Bihari sentiment and there are some bold sweeping statements that are probably not right in terms of tone. However a need for some pruning and rewriting does not make a case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis do any of the sources speak of a general Anti-Bihari sentiment? None of them do to my knowledge. And please post the sources which talk of this “Anti-Bihari sentiment”. This is clearly original research. Also, please show me the sources that link the section detailing economic matters and how they link with a general “anti-Bihari sentiment”. Please don’t support original research.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m referring to the sources provided in the article. Any editor can judge for themselves what they refer to. In the case of the ones I looked at they were clearly instances of people in other parts of India being hostile to Biharis. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and I have asked you to post these sources and show they are anything other than isolated incidents. Can you please post them. Furthermore, if you are aware of Wikipedia’s policy on original research then you will be aware that connecting different unrelated incidents is in violation of this. Unless something can be produced detailing that these incidents are part of a larger anti-Bihari sentiment, then it is original research.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard you. I am not posting sources in this discussion because I am not basing my !vote on anything that is not already accessible to anyone who reads the article. There is no purpose in my copying things here. Anyone who wishes to form a view on the validity of the article can just read it and look at the sources provided. Maybe they will agree with you that there is no such thing as anti-Bihari sentiment and that the many cases documented are just isolated indicents, or maybe they won’t. I’ve already formed my own view thank you. Mccapra (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article needing a rewrite is not AfD material. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Passes GNG with reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article documents a well-known reality to anyone with a pair of eyes. Actually, it should be described as 'anti-Bihari racism'. If it needs corrections, so be it, but it's relevant and generalized enough. --MaeseLeon (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bihari is not a race. Plus the article lead details attacks against people from Uttar PradeshThekua (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete← as per poster, this is mostly original research. A bunch of unconnected incidents termed as part of some perceived racist sentiment.Thekua (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, plenty of ok sources. Article in need of a re-write I guess but it is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on a cursory review of the English-language sources, with significant coverage, it appears to be a real and notable concept. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 7 November 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. So Why 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entelo[edit]

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

Non-notable company, lacks significant in-depth source from WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. A mix of paid for marketing content.scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator clearly failed to follow WP:BEFORE. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Please see these sources:

"Women in the Workplace (A Special Report) --- Apps to Battle Job Bias: Software takes on hiring and workplace practices"; Silverman, Rachel ; Gellman, Lindsay, Wall Street Journal, Sep 30, 2015, p.R.7 (here the company's algorithm is discussed as a means of overcoming gender bias)
"Women's representation in technology fields decreases as seniority increases, research shows" by Talley, Karen; FierceCEO, Mar 22, 2018 (discusses/analyzes data released by Entelo and what that means for women employed in the technology sector)
Max, Sarah (Sep 11, 2014). "Uncertain About Hiring, Some Companies Try 'Test Drives'". p. B.9. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Adam Bryant (July 31, 2014). "Tell Me About Your Next Job: Jon Bischke, the chief of Entelo, a recruiting software platform, says that employees who think ahead do well at their current jobs". p. B2. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Claire Cain Miller (June 25, 2015). Can an Algorithm Hire Better Than a Human?. p. SR4. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Winsborough, Dave ; Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas (Spring 2016). "Talent Identification in the Digital World: New Talent Signals and the Future of HR Assessment". People and Strategy. 39(2): 28-31.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This peer reviewed article discusses Entelo's algorithms ability to identify passive job seekers who might fit a particular role for prospective companies.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted citing this AfD in the deletion log, but the AfD has not been clsoed, and I do not see a consensus to delete at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the page log, the page was twice deleted and restored by Tone who may wish to offer a public statement even if it is to the effect that it was inadvertent - anyone can make a mistake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sadly, because nothwithstanding now meeting GNG, I personally consider it to be a publicity piece and that was the paid creator's clear intention before the draft was significantly cleaned up by other editors - a classic example of BOGOF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kudpung, in entirety. ∯WBG^converse 05:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, including the references listed above. The criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP excludes churnalism and many of the references were clear cases of such. We require Independent Content - that is Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Turning to the references ...

This Gigaom article is churnalism for their launch and based on an interview with the founder and clearly fails WP:ORGIND as it does not meet the criteria for "Independent Content". This techcrunch reference fails for the same reason as does this Venturebeat article. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2013/06/19/entelos-data-mining-surprise-second-chance-job-candidates/#3fb7a0b777e5 This Forbes "sites" reference and this one also fail as reliable sources but leaving that aside, are also churnalism and also based on an interview with the CEO, as does this Techcrunch reference and they fail WP:ORGIND. This reference from Yahoo Finance and this announcement on Globe Newswire are entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. This Techcrunch article is also based on a funding announcement from the company, fails ORGIND. This sfgate.com reference is based on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND. This Blog post on the WSJ fails as a reliable source but leaving that aside is entirely based on an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND. This from The Atlantic is one sentence, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Of the references listed by 4meter4 above, I cannot find the first one listed but I found this remarkably similarly titled article where the company is one of 7 companies listed and the information has likely been sourced from the company (para states "The company says"), fails ORGIND. The FierceCEO reference is based on a report from the company, fails ORGIND. This NYT reference and this on also are entirely based on quotations from the CEO, both fail ORGIND. This NYT reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Finally, this reference from Winsborough and Chamorro-Premuzic does not discuss Entelo in any great detail, nor their algorithm and Entelo is mentioned in-passing in one sentence ("Firms like TalentBin and Entelo have employed similar approaches..."), fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Not a single reference meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the findings of 4meter4. Passes GNG WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 4metre4, and thanks to Kudpung for WP:BOGOF. Article has several SIGCOVs, including this from the Wall Street Journal. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sports Byline USA. After two re-lists, no consensus to Keep, and a uniform consensus to Redirect to Sports Byline USA (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Overnight America[edit]

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

Long on information and name-dropping, clearly written by a fan (Former Major League Baseball players, Bill "Spaceman" Lee (who is a long time friend of Burke's) Jay Johnstone, and Fred Lynn have appeared on the show on a fairly regular basis to discuss the latest in MLB, as has former Columbo Family Mob Boss Michael Franzese. Christine Brennan from the USA Today are also contributors. One of his regular callers is Emperor Nobody, from Oakland, California. The Emperor brings a funny take on music and life issues not just sports, and much to the chagrin of former host, Chris Townsend, tends to agree with, and have much in common with Burke, when the topic of music is brought up.), no real notability other than airing on SiriusXM. The show is mentioned a lot in sporting articles, but not actually in any semblance of detail -- just "X said Y on Sports Overnight America" type blurbs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to Sports Byline USA. A search yielded no notable sources, but the program could be briefly covered on the page about the program's content creator.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sports Byline USA. It exists but isn't notable but there is a valid redirect target. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 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) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RedRover[edit]

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

Only 1 reference works for not very notable website Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - "References not working" is not a reason for deletion. Seems to pass WP:GNG with the sources currently listed in article, *New York Times Article, *TechCrunch and *CoolMomTech. CBS527^Talk 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC) After seeing Hydromania's comments and reading the updated WP:ORGCRIT, I'm convinced with the exception of the NYT article, the other sources are not strong enough to support keeping the article. CBS527^Talk 03:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see significant coverage, though I cant access the NYT article. I'd like to see something more than "this site has been launched." The article itself has no significant content.Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article, "Devoting Attention to a Child and a Phone, All at Once", is a 500+ word article about the RedRover App. There appears to be more than enough information in the references to expand the article. CBS527^Talk 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking for sources I've found: NYTimes, TechCrunch, Digiday, and a few mentions at CoolMomTech, the latest here.

The NYT article and-to a lesser extent-the techcrunch article are reliable sources and count toward N. GNG/SIGCOV doesn't specify an exact number of sources necessary to pass so these two, plus the less notable Digiday and CoolMomTech sources (which seem to be closer to blogs?) might work. However WP:ORGCRIT pretty much means "apply GNG extra strictly", requiring a stronger level of independence in the sourcing (specifically calling out blogs) and in the depth of coverage (note that the newest source we have is from 2013, the rest are from 2011). That and the fact it's an out of date stub (note that according to CoolMomTech the app has significantly changed direction) tip me into Delete. Hydromania (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and the creator most definitely had a COI. see Special:Contributions/Blipus. Hydromania (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Riftwar Cycle. No consensus to Keep; consensus for an Smerge to The Riftwar Cycle, no prejudice to a straight Redirect instead if an smerge is not forthcoming (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midkemia[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No sourcing currently. TTN (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (to The Riftwar Cycle if necessary)... although what I'd really like to advocate for here is a marginally more radical approach. Feist's The Riftwar Cycle is unquestionably notable, with quite a bit of independent discussion in reliable sources, even if the sourcing at that article doesn't show it. Having a cogent, thorough article about the long-running series of books necessitates a discussion of the setting, but any halfway competent effort, even in strict summary style, is probably going to be too long to easily fit into an article whose primary purpose is to serve as a list of books. I'd like to propose that the best solution here is to take the Midkemia article, along with Kelewan, Novindus, and everything listed under "Nations" in the navigation template, and brutally cull the content into a summary-style article probably best titled Setting of The Riftwar Cycle. That would be at least vaguely policy compliant (per WP:SPINOUT and the willingness to accept plot and setting summaries as essential to understanding the context of fictional works) and does in fact have some reliable sources available, as there's been at least limited discussion of Feist's adaptation of Nahuatl and Eastern trappings for some of his imagery in place of the genre-standard Tolkeinesque medieval European pastiche. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Riftwar Cycle, with a selective merge of any reliably sourced material deemed useful. Squeamish Ossifrage makes a good case for a single general setting summary article that can be reliably sourced and a redirect would preserve in the article history any useful content for that enterprise. If the general article never gets written, a redirect is still a reasonable course, as this is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:57, 1 November 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) 17:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollyoaks locations[edit]

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

Non-notable, completely in-universe unnecessary forked content. TTN (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adultcon[edit]

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

Lacking in coverage of any significance by reliable sources beyond routine stuff. Fails WP:GNG. Madness ^Darkness 15:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are plenty of RS to meet GNG.[2][3][4] These articles show media interest in the conventions beyond day of or week of coverage of events. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty more GNG on this topic: NBC, and CBS. Britishfinance (talk) 20:59, 8 November 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. So Why 17:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Memorial Institute Liluah[edit]

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

No sources since Jan 2017, and notability and advert concerns since September 2019. Article reads more like an advert for information that could be found the Institute's own website. I do not believe that it also meets Wikipedia:Notability. As no significant improvement to article propose deletion. Attempt to get through proposed deletion route, however notice contested - I am not sure what the grounds for contesting were as there is no notability, and further there has been no effort to improve this article. Master Of Ninja (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are linked to the first page, and they similar have problems with notability, references and seemingly like an advertisement: Sudhir Memorial Institute Madhyamgram

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. High schools are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know you say that, but is there a Wikipedia guideline that states that high school are usually notable? Everything else about the article seems to suggest it is NOT notable per Wikipedia:Notability. My issue with the article is not just lack of notability: it reads like an advertisement, does not have good sources, and despite the notices no one has tried to improve it. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL. Also, if fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Translation effort now. Drafting. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Noranda[edit]

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

Not english, no apparent translation effort. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:36, 1 November 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. So Why 17:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unawatuna Maha Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources exist. Andrew Base (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as written doesn't make a lot of sense, but I do find some sources: "The Exel Foundation helps rebuild education infrastructure in Sri Lanka" [5]; "British High Commissioner visits Southern Province " (not much in it, though) [6] - maybe more in archives, or in other languages? Will see ..... RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strangely, the creator made a draft for this school 5 days before creating Unawatuna College (now a redirect) and then the one above shortly after. I think both of these should be deleted and the creator to continue working on the draft? - both are pretty much the same. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of available sources for WP:V, let alone WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 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. If anyone wants the text or wikicode to use on another site, you can request it from me or another admin. RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen[edit]

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

Non-notable, completely in-universe unnecessary forked content. TTN (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tons of unsourced, non-notable, largely out of context, WP:PLOT information. 99 percent of this isn't even remotely notable within the comics themselves - this is essentially just a list of all of the easter eggs/references to various pieces of fiction that were inserted into the backgrounds of panels or mentioned once by a character, and had no bearing on the actual plot of the comics themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly, I see the appeal of this kind of project. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. Nareek (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to https://lxg.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Locations - I don't think they have an entry like that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astara (Spiritual)[edit]

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

Non notable spiritual movement. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit it to make it acceptable instead of deleting it?—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should welcome new articles!—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sources either in the article or that I can find through searching, means topic does not meet WP:GNG. @Spasiba5: No amount of editing will change this. Hug^syrup 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fall way short passing GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a simple search uncovers no sourcing besides the Encyclopedia.com entry, which is surprisingly non-encyclopedic. "Meanwhile, Earlyne Chaney, who had been a clairvoyant since childhood, had held conversations with a spirit being who called himself Kut-Hu-Mi."? Um - no.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable group with inadequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTINHERITED. It was a passing group within a larger, ongoing movement. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 7 November 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 it being a autobiography or a paid biography is not a reason for deletion, lack of notability sure is. So Why 17:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Smith Ford[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable and probably an autobiography given that Special:Contributions/Jannajoos has only created this page yesterday and is just expanding it and linking all of Ford's non-notable roles (likely just an extra) to this page.

The page, if not deleted, is terribly written and needs WP:DYNAMITE, but I just don't see the notability to keep that. It's full of nonsense aggrandizement and weasel words and vague allusions and sentence fragments. And the top "reference" is to the Wikipedia main page. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not an autobiography, but per this edit summary, the SPA Jannajoos (who is evidently using her real name), identifies the subject of this article as "[her] client". Put paid editor notice on her talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Janna Joos can't seem to help themselves on their own talk page (and is probably rewriting another missive to no one as we speak or otherwise continuing WP:NOTGETTINGIT), but I just wanted to point out somewhere that someone has been trying to make an article on Ford for over a decade, whether another manager (or Manage her?) or Ford herself. Not worth an SPI, but it's definitely a concerted effort by:

Debsford (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Manageher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Deborah Smith Ford (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jannajoos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A lot of similar language and tone used in the above (film talk page requests, user pages as articles, etc.) as found on this article. Of note here, is that all of these accounts seem to have an obvious COI regarding this subject, not organic page creation attempts. JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE found no independent reliable source to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
Keep there is time to delete - one day after the article was started we push to delete? WP:NORUSH. This is a pre-internet subject and not all sources will be WP:GHITS Wm335td (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia has rules against autobiographies for reasons, we need to make them have teeth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded no substantial sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trang Thach Hickman[edit]

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

Unfortunately all this article achieves is an announcement of Ms. Thach Hickman's existence and brief professional background, violating WP:RESUME, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:EXIST. The two sources currently in the article are brief profiles explaining her possibly unique status as a woman Mormon doctor, but those are from the Mormon media and may not qualify for the significant coverage rule at WP:SIGCOV. I can find no other reliable notice beyond a few industry and professional listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - insufficient sourcing and no claim of significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That vote may be a reference to a different discussion. John Pack Lambert has said nothing here (yet). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to object to the line "her possibly unique status as a woman Mormon doctor". A- this is a problematic way to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. B- there have been women physicians who were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the 19th-century, such as Ellen Shipp and Emma Penrose. BYU named residence halls after such women over 60 years ago. Hickman is at the start of her career. She may at some point be notable, but not yet. On the sources about religion and science, being held up as an example of someone who sees these are coexisting in an article written by someone else is not the way to notability. What we would have to see is Hickman writing articles or books about the subject and then having 3rd party coverage of her published work on the subject. I want to include this article, but Hickman is a professional at the start of her career, she is not yet at the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but those two articles are written in a fashion indicating that the authors think she is unique, and one is written by an entity called Mormon Women Project. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources appear rather insular, and we have no means of gauging their reliability, so they don't contribute to a case for wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. We are a non-religious charity. Any insertion of proselytism would endanger our own, specific tax-exempt status. This appears to be a very ordinary scholar at the beginning of her career. Virtually all Mormons engage in missionary work, so we'd have to have an article about each of the millions of LDS members if we didn't stop this practice. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ankh-Morpork. No desire to keep this; given the amount of content, the leaning to smerge with Ankh-Morpork is reasonable. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content with WP:TRIVIA in mind to a new section at Ankh-Morpork. That article has more independent sources, the article on the guild only has one reference which isn't a Discworld book. SITH (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing gives context outside of the fictional world it is set in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete fiction-cruft and Wikia material, non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Ankh-Morpork.4meter4 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Ankh-Morpork. No need to remove everything here. Regards So Why 17:46, 9 November 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) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Places in The Dark Tower series[edit]

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

Non-notable, completely in-universe unnecessary forked content. There is no particular justification for this when there are plenty of articles where the context of each location can be described. TTN (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did someone recently open a portal into a dark universe filled with lists of the planets/locations of various sci-fi/fantasy serieses? Delete for exactly the same reasons as Planets of Blake 7 and all the other recent similar "Planets/Locations of XXXX" AFD discussions - no WP:LISTN, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOT as it is an all-plot summary. FOARP (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely made up of in-universe plot information. There is only one source being used, and I'm not even sure if that one counts as secondary source - Scribner is one of King's main publishing houses and the forward to the book was written by King, so this could very well be an official series guidebook of sorts. Regardless, though, the only information it is being used to support is plot information that does not indicate any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 19:42, 2 November 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) 12:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besnik Sulaj.[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — At least two sources do not link or mention man. It's hard to find good coverage in English sources.^[1]^[2] DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete Only source I could find was a passing mention in a press release. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find in-depth coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only minimal coverage, mainly as president of Dinamo Tirana. The bulk of the article was either unsourced or not supported by the source(s) cited, so I've removed most of that. We are left with two referenced facts: in 2013–2014 he was, by one set of criteria, among the ten richest people in his country; and he is/was president of that football club. A redirect to that article might be an alternative to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect originally and written over four times before the originating editor was blocked. Another editor came, a SPA, to work on while it was in draft. I suspect once it is put back, the article will magically appear to replace it. I propose an outright delete and a small detail in the Dinamo Tirana page, mentioning that he owns it. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I propose [...] small detail in the Dinamo Tirana page [...] That's a good way to dealt with it. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 20:29, 1 November 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) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Rockets brawl[edit]

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

Overstated "brawl" was a run-of-the-mill verbal and shoving incident among basketball players with no major punches, injuries, or any suspensions as major as those at List of people banned or suspended by the NBA. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, a single game is generally not notable. As a single event, this fails guideline WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage dying within days. There are no major write-ups months later to show its WP:LASTING impact. It violates WP:NOTADIARY to go into this play-by-play detail. A few sentences at 2018–19 Houston Rockets season and 2018–19 Los Angeles Lakers season as well as the bios of those suspended is sufficient. —Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator has it exactly right. bd2412 T 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I know I created this article, but I could probably count on two hands the number of brawls that have resulted in 9+ games of suspensions for the parties involved; "run-of-the-mill" is a little misleading, I'd think? If you look at other brawl articles which I modelled this article after, such as the Knicks-Nuggets brawl, they delve into intricate details of the altercation, and other historical games of significance seem to follow this model, which I'm confused about your WP:NOTADIARY concern. Similar good articles like that one are also primarily modelled on primary sources. I had this article reviewed in IRC because of my concern about notability, but no issues were raised there, which is why I'm slightly surprised that my first article is now on a AfD. 2506Locks (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@2506Locks: Yeah, it sucks when you patterned it after an existing article, did due dilligence at WP:AFC, but the article you started is still being questioned. If you can (re-)read WP:NEVENT and are able to identify later sources that detail the histroical significance of this, I would reconsider. Regarding the Knicks–Nuggets article, WP:OTHERSTUFF might apply. I havent looked at that brawl, but it might be more significant than this one, or perhaps that one should be deleted as well. While AfC met one editor's approval, AfD offers a wider audience to reach a consensus. This discussion just started, and others might have different perspectives. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable incident that deserves nothing more than a passing mention in relevant articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. the incident is not notable and not suitable for an article. Alex-h (talk) 13:10, 5 November 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. Declining to salt since neither title has a history of previous deletions. RL0919 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kastel[edit]

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

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt both the article and the redirect. This article was originally created under the name of the gallery so I have added additional search links for that name above but it didn't help as much as I hoped. I am seeing a fair number of passing mentions in the search hits but nothing to indicate that either Kastel himself or the gallery are notable. Also, the article is an orphan apart from its one redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added "and salt both the article and the redirect" in response to the clear bad faith campaign of intimidation with which some are trying to defend this article. It seems likely that such people would persist in such efforts if not prevented from doing so. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those socks are now blocked, thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of tens of thousands of gallerists. There is nothing to indicate that this one is notable. I can find minor mentions and a press release, but no significant coverage. GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet !votes
*Keep This was one of the most notable galleries in town. Admittedly, it would not be your kind of art work but that qualifies as a form of COI from my perspective. There must be a thousand articles and reviews on the shows he organized. You can't be deletionist and lazy. This is disgraceful. Booboo the dog (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppetThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Please be careful with your wording. I was initially inclined to read your use of "your" as an improper personal attack on the nominator. Only on a second reading did I realise that you probably meant the impersonal "one's". At least, I very much hope that you did. Even so, there is no COI here. When I was doing searches to see if the subject was notable I found so little that I could not even tell I whether liked the subjects' taste in art or not. I found a lot of passing mentions. It was enough to prove that the gallery existed and that it had staged exhibitions but I found nothing that spoke to notability, in the Wikipedia sense of the term, for either the person or the gallery. I guess I could have looked into whether I actually liked the artists that these passing mentions related to but, as that is totally off-topic here, I didn't bother. Notability is not inherited. If you believe that sufficient coverage does exist then please feel free to add additional references to the article and I will consider changing my !vote. Blank assertion that the sources exist will not cut it when I am finding so little in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar. Please bear in mind that having exhibited work, even by a very notable artist, is not enough to confer notability in itself. Reviews of specific exhibitions may contain coverage of the gallery or proprietor (which could be helpful in showing notability) but that is not automatically the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] *Keep So I got to wondering why an American and a Montrealer would be this interested in one page I created and another that I am related to about a wonderful old gallery owner... who was instrumental in bringing a show about Fritz Brandtner to the MMFA... and then I thought hey... I have Premium products in certain social media accounts and so I took a screenshot.... meaning I know who you are in the real world. Please try to be a little more objective and drop the heavy POV on art. Yes to women and non-Eurocentric and indigenous artists but BIG NO to rewriting history... :-) JOSBRU (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppetThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: There is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tondino (2nd nomination) that the above recently created account might be a sockpuppet belonging to the original author of this article. I do not know whether that claim is solid but I do note that the above includes an unambiguous threat of outing people's personal identities on top of an unjustifiable personal attack on those assumed identities. I don't know exactly what is going on here but such intimidation is completely unacceptable. Given the evidence of bad faith here I am adding "and salt" to my "delete", !vote. I hope that somebody with the appropriate "premium products" (i.e. admin rights) will be along soon to knock it on the head. Wikipedia does not need this drama. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Amen.ThatMontrealIP (talk)

sockpuppet !votes

*Keep This was one of the most notable galleries in town. Admittedly, it would not be your kind of art work but that qualifies as a form of COI from my perspective. There must be a thousand articles and reviews on the shows he organized. You can't be deletionist and lazy. This is disgraceful. Booboo the dog (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppetThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with your wording. I was initially inclined to read your use of "your" as an improper personal attack on the nominator. Only on a second reading did I realise that you probably meant the impersonal "one's". At least, I very much hope that you did.

Even so, there is no COI here. When I was doing searches to see if the subject was notable I found so little that I could not even tell I whether liked the subjects' taste in art or not. I found a lot of passing mentions. It was enough to prove that the gallery existed and that it had staged exhibitions but I found nothing that spoke to notability, in the Wikipedia sense of the term, for either the person or the gallery. I guess I could have looked into whether I actually liked the artists that these passing mentions related to but, as that is totally off-topic here, I didn't bother. Notability is not inherited. If you believe that sufficient coverage does exist then please feel free to add additional references to the article and I will consider changing my !vote. Blank assertion that the sources exist will not cut it when I am finding so little in Google Books, Newspapers and Scholar. Please bear in mind that having exhibited work, even by a very notable artist, is not enough to confer notability in itself. Reviews of specific exhibitions may contain coverage of the gallery or proprietor (which could be helpful in showing notability) but that is not automatically the case. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep So I got to wondering why an American and a Montrealer would be this interested in one page I created and another that I am related to about a wonderful old gallery owner... who was instrumental in bringing a show about Fritz Brandtner to the MMFA... and then I thought hey... I have Premium products in certain social media accounts and so I took a screenshot.... meaning I know who you are in the real world. Please try to be a little more objective and drop the heavy POV on art. Yes to women and non-Eurocentric and indigenous artists but BIG NO to rewriting history... :-) JOSBRU (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppetThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tondino (2nd nomination) that the above recently created account might be a sockpuppet belonging to the original author of this article. I do not know whether that claim is solid but I do note that the above includes an unambiguous threat of outing people's personal identities on top of an unjustifiable personal attack on those assumed identities. I don't know exactly what is going on here but such intimidation is completely unacceptable.

Given the evidence of bad faith here I am adding "and salt" to my "delete", !vote. I hope that somebody with the appropriate "premium products" (i.e. admin rights) will be along soon to knock it on the head. Wikipedia does not need this drama. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amen.ThatMontrealIP (talk)

Delete both a non-notable art dealer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both clearly falls short of notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We've been over this many, many times. Owning an art gallery is like being a producer. Anybody with $3,000 cash burning a hole in their pocket can be one. This person appears to be especially mundane and provincial. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 7 November 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. It's currently not even mentioned in Joker (character), so a merger seems unnecessary for making the reader better understand that character. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Chemicals[edit]

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

Fictional organization with no suggestion of notability per WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. But it is part of the Batman-verse (located in Gotham), so I think it's better to discuss it here (maybe someone can figure out a decent merge target or such). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would say the most appropriate Redirect/Merge target would be Joker (character), as the location's main significance in the Batman mythology is as the setting of the Joker's origin. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly omitted from the recent movie... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced collection of trivia. TTN (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notability outside of the fictional work where it appears.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:PRESERVE Merge to Joker (character) Wm335td (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a trivial location that not even Joker's creators can agree is his origin._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 3 November 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) 13:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Pagan (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable businessman. There are some press releases and passing mentions, but I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability either under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 06:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Seems promotional to me. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for businessman who falls short of GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current article and some quick research on Pagan he is a large part of a pyramid scheme and contains enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Added information on the business group/pyramid scheme to the page. Comb4ckszn (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC) — Comb4ckszn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Have you seen teh page for The Syndicate. Pagan is trying to whitewash his name with this crap. Ignores MLM and FTC investigations of him, which I'll update the page with right now. Not sure why several SPA accounts are all suddenly so interested in deleting this page. 65.190.31.78 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC) — 65.190.31.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If that's the case then it is likely a case of WP:BIO1E. The syndicate itself seems to be of dubious notability given the current sourcing of the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Fails WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is passing at best of this ordinary business writer; no accomplishments of note. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Elrod[edit]

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

Largely self-edited article about a local pastor sourced only to his own website - no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search does not provide any significant coverage Melcous (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece. No reliable sources found. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion. One bit on FOX News about a "Church for Men" he co-founded. Web sites on him and his ministry, lots of pages on social media, but, yeah, I haven't found anything from a reliable or independent source that would support notability. - Donald Albury 12:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find adequate indepedent RS. Article trimmed of unsourced items, leaving about two sentences. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notable coverage, appears to be self-promotional Dexxtrall (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill street missionary. I'm sure he helps people, but a single story about him on an entertainment TV station is not significant coverage. The recent spate of missionary BLP spam endangers own not-for-profit status as a non-sectarian charity. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Civil Rights[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. It is not even clear if this name covers more than a bunch of social-media accounts. Prodded earlier but was undone by an anon. The article's creator attempted to blank it citing a lack of reliable sources, but this was reverted. Twitter followers should not count as "members". --Lambiam 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, does not seem to be notable Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 06:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 06:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even though it's a well-meaning effort. The subject is a social media project of the New Civil Rights Movement, an organization founded by David Badash, whom I've known personally for about 25 years, both of us being activists in the LGBT rights movement over that time. He is a journalist, blogger, and civil rights leader. I contacted him off-wiki, and he is fine with deleting this page filled with errors, because "it is totally wrong." In due time, I will write a stub on him; Badash is cited frequently on Wikipedia and is somewhat notable. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 7 November 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 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Dumas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references provided do not provide substantial coverage of the subject so WP:BIO does not appear to be met. Note that all the Forbes links are forbes.com/sites/ which are not reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though this article has a promotional feel, the references include Inc, and NBC, and US News and World Report with mentions. This will require me to do some more work. Wm335td (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One interview (that provides no biographical information about him) and being included in two list articles [7] [8] does not constitute substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Delete ... added ref to MSNBC interview and others; removed Forbes contributors links.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Eloquent Peasant: Which sources demonstrate WP:BIO is met? That MSNBC interview is the same one I linked to above. SmartSE (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This piece seems to be about a non-notable subject. Lots of puffery from accounts that seem suspect in terms of having an undisclosed COI (looking at edit history, every time this piece seems to come up for discussion, a random user starts vigorously defending it and adding a zillion sources, many of which are later removed.) I don't see the notability criteria of WP:BIO being met here. I simply do not see sources that are significant enough and have enough real editorial oversight. Lots of Inc/Forbes/bloggy-clickfarm type stuff here. Not sure this person justifies an article as opposed to subject's inclusion on perhaps a list, if that.173.227.22.136 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many sources are blog or promotional content done by marketing teams but not journalists. Inherently self-promotional article on Wikipedia from the look of it. Article seems more like thinly veiled marketing piece as opposed to a legitimate Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.169.45.4 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subject. Does not meet WP:BLP. Sourcing does not meet WP:BIO.2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:85 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Isn't 4 deletes and no keeps a clear consensus? SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, three of those were by editors who had never participated in AfD and had generally not participated in discussions before. Weighing their !vote was tricky and as such I decided there was little harm in a relist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we rid Wikipedia of needlessly promotional cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 2 November 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. JGHowes ^talk 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PsychAlive[edit]

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

Defunct website with very poor references. Doesnt appear to be notable, but the Glendon Association, which seems to be behind it still exists, and might possibly be notable, though most of the online references seem to be written by Dr. Lisa Firestone, who is part of it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete. Relisting in hopes firmer consensus for delete can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Dearth of quality, independent sources, issues outstanding since 2010 apparently. Independent search (admittedly a quick one) did not yield any either. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I did find a few peer reviewed journal articles that cite papers from PsychAlive and I did find several doctoral theses that do as well. Given its use in academia I would have been inclined towards keep if there had been even one good independent reference on the website. However, I didn't find any RS on the website itself.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This subject does not rise to the level of encyclopedic coverage. bd2412 T 20:22, 9 November 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Coalition of Christians and Jews[edit]

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

Organization is a non-notable chapter (as per wp:ORG, specifically wp:BRANCH) of the former National Conference for Community and Justice, now National Federation for Just Communities. I haven't found any significant sources. I don't think there's anything here that deserves merging into either article. Also nominating the following article, another non-notable chapter:

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

Ignatz mice•talk 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. A number of independent sources come out of the woodwork[9] if one searches for them, especially under the acronym MCCJ. StonyBrook (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @StonyBrook: I did see various news articles like that. I fail to see how they demonstrate the subjects' notability. In the one article you linked, for example, the MCCJ is mentioned in one line out of 65 paragraphs: They got a single quote from a rabbi who works with the organization, hardly "significant coverage" per WP:ORGCRIT. I've yet to find a news article actually focusing on the organization that is neither 1) a straight-up press release nor 2) noting the fact that they're giving out a community engagement award. Ignatz mice•talk 21:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I count 2 mentions in 36 paragraphs, but I guess we count differently. Not including captions. StonyBrook (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, they quote rabbi twice. I just re-counted and got 71 newlines, but agreed on the point that news articles break things into way more paragraphs than other sources do. Ignatz mice•talk 22:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep " Miami Coalition", I agree with StonyBrook, it looks as though this organization - which has been around since the Roosevelt administration - needs improvement, not deletion.Strandvue (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be annoying, but do you have policy reasons to support your opinion, besides "it's been around for a long time"? I'm specifically wondering if you can find sources that are "specific, independent, reliable, secondary" (per wp:ORGCRIT) that demonstrate notability. I haven't been able to. Ignatz mice•talk 23:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], [12], lots more in the Miami Herald, although the public access archive only appears to go back a few years. Better archive searches will undoubtedly produce more sources.Strandvue (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link 2: An obit for a former MCCJ director. MCCJ mentioned a few times, nothing that demonstrates notability.

Link 3: Another obit for the same person. MCCJ featured more prominently, enough to be used as a decent reference in an article, but I'm not convinced it demonstrates notability.

Link 4: A gussied-up press release. "Here is an event that will happen in the community!" Nothing demonstrates notability.

See my comment below; just because an organization is mentioned in news articles does not mean it is notable. Ignatz mice•talk 21:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Inclusive Communities does gets at least some local coverage [13], but does not come up in a search of the Washington Post, where I would expect to find important Virginia civic organizations. On the other hand, the Richmond Times-Dispatch offers deep coverage of VIC [14], so I suggest Keep.Strandvue (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the RTD offers "deep coverage" on VCIC. Here's the first result in that Google link you posted. Note the URL and the text at the bottom of the article: "This feature [...] is brought to you by the featured organization". Not an independent source, therefore fails to demonstrate notability.

Here's the second Google hit. An opinion column by a VCIC steering committee. Not independent.

The third hit. A profile of the organization's president. As with MCCJ, there's enough info here to use it as a reference but I don't believe the profile demonstrates notability of the VCIC itself.

The fourth. An editorial, three paragraphs long, congratulating awardees of a VCIC award.

Fifth. A column by the VCIC's president.

All of these articles are either not independent or are wp:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of the subject. The fact that the organization exists, and has been mentioned in scores of newspaper articles and columns, does not demonstrate notability if those articles are not substantial, explicitly about the organization, and independent of the organization. I'm not trying to be flippant here, but an honest question: Can you make an argument that the links you posted demonstrate notability under wp:ORGCRIT, or can you find a source that does? Because I don't think they do. Ignatz mice•talk 21:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs improvement, not AfD. Wm335td (talk) 19:55, 2 November 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 09:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with WP:RS Lightburst (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea about either guideline. You just said the same thing on another AfD with nearly 100% primary sources. TTN (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination rationale is lazy and your WP:BEFORE is lacking. You should study the issue before making disruptive nominations. Lightburst (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither has anything to do with your inability to actually tell what makes a reliable source. It seems you're just stating a generic contrary opinion because you dislike my methods, so your opinion will hopefully be discounted as pointless. TTN (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to attack the !voter - it starts to feel like a WP:PA. Your nomination has already been discounted by me but I imagine others may come along to defend your non-existent rationale. I participate on many AfDs and occasionally I encounter a nominator that attacks the participants and bludgeons editors. I have other important work to do here, so best of luck to you on your nominations. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will call out nonsense when I see it. You say the nomination is lacking, but only refute it with a nonsensical rebuttal you have yet to back up with even the slightest justification. I can perfectly respect an inclusionistic mindset when one is willing to argue based on actual standards, but not someone who uses them as a shield for their unsupported opinions. TTN (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage, mentions in passing, usual fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Piotrus. Non-notable character that is, as with most of the Transformers articles, fancruft. Don't see any "clear" pass of GNG anywhere._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Decepticons. The proposed target article only has a single reference for dozens of characters. This isn't notable enough for a stand alone article, but is noteworthy within the series. Any added references for the list would be a net gain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switching my opinion to Delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WOW! This was the 25th most unfortunately named Transformer – "he ain’t no Marilyn Monroe by Earth standards"! Seriously, Lightburst, this vote was lazy and embarrassing, which of the sources here satisfy GNG??? It's not our job to have separate articles for every item in "Transformers: The Ultimate Guide". Stop reflexively claiming GNG when none of the sources are independent of the appearances and its fancruft and none remotely have substantive content establishing its own notability. Maybe find something halfway there when you put this on your inclusionist canvassing page? Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single one of these characters is notable outside the Transformers universe. In fact, they aren't all that notable within that universe. If there is an appropriate list article, a redirect would be appropriate, but short of that, delete is the way to go. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources provided on the page, and found upon searches, are not sufficient enough to count as reliable sources that denotes notability on this non-notable character. I am personally not in favor of Redirecting minor characters like this to the various "List of...." Transformers character lists, as those lists are pretty big messes and should, ideally, be limited to the actually notable examples. Of which, this character is certainly not included among. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 4 November 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. So Why 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Amoore[edit]

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

Hate to do this since I actually really like Foxes and Peppers' music, but literally every source in this article is WP:PRIMARY or just tangential mentions. His albums were small independent releases mostly sold at furry cons. He hasn't charted a single. Mainstream media has paid him no attention. While he's worked with some notable people on his music, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 5,000 sales of an album is nothing, despite the fact that I enjoy the music. A WP:BEFORE found nothing of note on Gnews, Gbooks, or regular Google, just sites selling his music, YouTube uploads, social media, and the like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references in the article at present seem to be reliable and there is no bio or reviews on AllMusic, haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could no quality sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 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. So Why 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Love (The Real Thing song)[edit]

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

not seeing how this meets WP:NSINGLE Laun chba ller 01:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG, and the only reason for the article's existence is because the creator has been trying to create articles for every song written by Lynsey de Paul, however obscure the song. Didn't chart anywhere and there is no in-depth coverage of the song, as it was released well after the group's 1970s heyday and just before their brief resurgence in 1986 with remixed versions of their biggest hits. As it was a stand-alone single, there is no parent album to redirect to – I would be open to a redirect to The Real Thing (UK band), but with so many other songs called "We Got Love" by other artists and given the obscurity of this track, I wonder whether it would be worth it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard3120.4meter4 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Cultural y Deportiva Leonesa season[edit]

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

Nominating this page for WP:NSEASONS as they played in the third tier of Spanish football. HawkAussie (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:22, 1 November 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.