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

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

Lydia Fox (actress)[edit]

Lydia Fox (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability requiements for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the article discusses her relatives instead. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#A7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amputated (band)[edit]

Amputated (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Article is only a one-sentence summary, a list of albums, and some sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, A7 applies here. Hog Farm (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 16:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Duck[edit]

Metal Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense article about a completely non-notable band, as exemplified by the decade-plus lack of content and sourcing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is sparse and unsourced, which is interesting, given how long the article has existed. Lack of sourcing clearly demonstrates this band's lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no coverage in reliable sources. I think it's telling that the band members section only lists the musicians' first names. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Funny band, but they are not notable for Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. It's not notable and has no RS. I am surprised how it's been there for such a long time Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just to pile it on, even in the metal history geek community I could only find one mention of this act ([1]), and otherwise they seem to have gone completely unnoticed. Quacks to be them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable band. Lightburst (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Funny how it went unnoticed for 13 years. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Notabililty not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed, Accesscrawl, it seems that this duck's flight under the radar has come to an end. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thomas Walter Scott. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Walter Scott[edit]

Electoral history of Walter Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Thomas Walter Scott is certainly not so long that this info wouldn't be able to be presented there. There are also table formats that can include the results of multiple elections to save space, for example Joe_Barton#Electoral_history. Reywas92^Talk 00:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t mind keeping both articles as they are. Both may be expanded and we’d end up demerging them again later. However Merge would be fine if the consensus is we shouldn’t leave it as it is.Mccapra (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Thomas Walter Scott. Having a content fork here is not justified with the way the articles are set up at the moment. Hog Farm (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The more I think about it, the more I think content fork articles of this type are never justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete per failure to meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Pickvance[edit]

David Pickvance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has no indepdent sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not covered by independent reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn as a responder actually converted the title into a proper article, thus resolving the issue. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Farabee[edit]

David Farabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for Bearcat: This article was deleted because it was created by a serial copyright violator whose articles are being presumptively deleted as we speak, some of which were of dubious notability and which you have voted to delete before because they were non-notable politicians. What do you think? ミラP 00:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The WD entry says that he was a member of the Texas House of Representatives, see his profile here: [2] ミラP 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this page were using actual words to describe him as a politician, I'd never have listed it for deletion. If you want to rewrite it to be a real article about him, be my guest and I'll withdraw this — but the fact that the person named in the page title would theoretically pass a notability guideline is not a reason why it should be kept in this form in lieu of a real article that properly stated and contexualized his notability in prose. Our job is to keep articles, the kind that use words, and diverting people to Wikidata in lieu of text is always 100 per cent inappropriate. It's not that he can never have an article on here — it's that there's no legitimate reason for him to have this in lieu of a proper article. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Will no one rid me of this turbulent template? Feeling a little extorted here, Bearcat. Anyway, there's an article now, if you can keep it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the Texas Legislature (https://lrl.texas.gov/mobile/memberDisplay.cfm?memberID=172). Passes WP:NPOL.--Enos733 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The original cross-redirect probably could have been speedied as opposed to using AfD (unless there's something I'm missing), but the brand new post-AfD nom article there passes WP:NPOL. Probably could use a bit more work, but it's notable. Bearcat, probably best to withdraw this now. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider it speediable at first, because this was a novel situation — but shortly after I initiated this discussion, another administrator did speedy delete and close the other discussion I alluded to above on the grounds that crosswiki redirection was close enough to cross-namespace redirection to be speediable under that criterion even though it's not already explicitly stated as such. So now that I know people will have my back if I come across any more of these, that's different — but I do tend to be reluctant to use speedy in edge cases where that might be questioned or challenged, because I've had far too many people come at me for things I've considered speediable in the past. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Imago Theatre (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

Imago Theatre (Portland, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable theater company. The only notice this company appears to have received outside of run-of-the-mill announcements of its shows was the fact that it had to sell its building, which apparently has some local historical notability of its own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. @WikiDan61: I wish you had raised this concern on the article's talk page before going straight to AfD. I see where you're coming from, but if I search "Imago Theatre"+Portland via Google News, there are 875 returns. Yes, some of these are just calendar announcements or other minor blurbs, but there are also quite a few program reviews. I believe these could be collected to form a decent overview of the theatre company's program history. And these are not blogs -- these are reputable sources like Willamette Week, OPB News, Portland Mercury, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. These articles do not add up to nothing. And yes, apart from programs and reviews, there are other events such as the possible selling of its historic building, as reported by multiple reliable sources, as well as mentions in guide books of Portland, etc. In my opinion, this is an easy keep. Much more work is needed to expand the article, but the stub is appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article may have been put on WikiDan61's radar because of recent problematic edits by a new editor, possibly one with a COI. I've tried getting this editor to discuss possible improvements on the talk page. But deletion is not the right course of action here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems well sourced, and per Another Believer's comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so I'm an eventualist. That said have we already acknowledged it was newsworthy that the occupied a historical building and had to sell it. This guy who writes for the Portland Mercury talks of international attention, notes 40 year run and says some of the most interesting experiments he's seen in Portland. The Willamette Week was excited see their production in 2019. Oregon Artswatch found one of their shows a hit. Doesn't seem like it would be hard to put a decent article together on a theater company that had a 40 year run in a historic building with some local fave hits and some avante gard work of note. MrBill3 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Another Believer: I acknowledged that "the discussion has asserted that the organization is, in fact, notable." That is not the same as acknowledging that notability myself. I maintain that my nomination was made in good faith; the discussion should be allowed to run its full length. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, You're right, my apologies. I will strike my comment above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I always believed your nomination was made in good faith. I was just trying to have the tag removed sooner than later when I misinterpreted your comment and thought you were acknowledging notability. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete under an only slightly creative interoretation of WP:CSD#R2, taking into account R4, hich is identical in effect - cross-project and cross-namespace are sufficiently close aalogues and the template use here so idiosyncratic that this would fail the "WTF" test. Guy (help!) 22:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Jugend & Volk[edit]

Verlag Jugend & Volk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting due to inability to meet GNG. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Suborno[edit]

Bose Suborno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't a recreated article be G4 eligible? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if it is fundamentally the same as the original one, which for non-admins is hard to determine. Fram (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also refs that post-date the last AfD which is a decent (but not perfect) proxy for whether it has been changed from last AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the GNG with resounding success! All I see are articles where he's briefly quoted promoting his ventures. PK650 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Notability not established Accesscrawl (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL. I honestly don't see how this subject is anything more than a run of the mill hotelier. His awards are minor; his honorary degrees are not from reputable institutions. Claims are excessive and not backed by reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We're going to keep in order to see this article improved. Folks are welcome to renominate for re-consideration in the future. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavan Holohan[edit]

Gavan Holohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fails WP:NFOOTY since the Irish league doesn't qualify, but long term players in the Irish league frequently can pass WP:GNG and with Holohan's transfer rumours being reported nationally I think he easily passes WP:GNG after my before search. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per SportingFlyer's rationale. While "played [..] in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues" (of WP:NFOOTY) is not met, there does appear to be some coverage (in national outlets) beyond the usual "match report" style coverage (suggesting WP:GNG is perhaps met). It's not overwhelming coverage. Hence the "weak" qualifier. But there has been sustained coverage, where the subject has been a primary topic, spanning some years. Guliolopez (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Routine news about transfers/rumours does not constitute "significant coverage". GiantSnowman 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep After a google search and reviewing some of the refs, I feel there is enough to just pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Has enough to scrape by WP:GNG, but needs more content relevant to the subject and sources aside from transfer news. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Neither league meets WP:NFOOTY requirements re. fully professional but there is at least some broader coverage. I'm no advocate of excessive coverage of sports people, but I also see no reason not to keep and improve viable articles already worked on.SeoR (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Poolie22 has added more citations to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While Holohan fails WP:NFOOTY, there are other notable Irish players who have passed WP:GNG. Following some updates to the article, I feel Holohan has enough notability to pass GNG. Poolie22 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being bold and deleting this article. If someone wishes to mention it in an appropriate article, I'm happy to provide you a copy of the article in your userspace for use. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Secretary for International Affairs[edit]

Assistant Secretary for International Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep According to https://www.dhs.gov/leadership there are several assistant secretaries of homeland security though we don't have articles for any others (but we do for some of the many in other departments). This one falls under the DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans and could be merged there or renamed Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for International Affairs. The article's listed incumbent is the Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and should be removed. This could become a dab page like Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs to include that one and those in Interior, HUD, and Treasury though we don't have articles for any of them. Agree that these lower positions aren't necessarily notable on their own. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the text into its parent office article as above, and convert this one to disambiguator. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a rather insignificant government job. Absent SIGCOV it is not encyclopedic. Wm335td (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the text into appropriate article. Some of the sourced content is perhaps worth keeping, but I don't think it merits a stand-alone article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:TNT. It's not a dab page, and it's not substantively useful. If kept, it must have a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping at this time. Please expand and improve the article. If concerns remain about notability, please consider bringing up WP:MERGE on the article's talk page or re-nominating if deletion is preferred. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Web[edit]

Digital Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now: The content that was deleted due to PROD was unrelated to this new topic, and I moved the edit history of that magazine to Digital Web (magazine). Meanwhile, I found evidence that the new unrelated content has two product reviews. BOZ (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on my comments above, as I added one of the reviews and will see what I can do about getting a copy of the other one. At worst, since there are two reviews, merge to List of Mage: The Ascension books rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The addition of the French site Guide du Rôliste Galactique as a reference would give two RS, which would suggest notability.Guinness323 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets NBOOK, the relevant policy. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping, as the article meets general notability guidelines. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Records[edit]

Sunset Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - horribly written article, with no citations. However, this is an important record label, in that it was not only a reissue label (as per current article status), but issued otherwise unreleased material by The T-Bones ([3]), The Ventures, Henry Mancini, and Flip Wilson, among others. As a long time collector/researcher, I consider any label listed at Both Sides Now to be a notable label worthy of encyclopedic attention. There is probably in-depth information about Sunset at [4]. There's no preview, but my local library holds it and I'll look it up. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as the article can be given good sourcing and be rewritten to bring it up to snuff.TH1980 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets GNG. Please see my substantial revisions to the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much-needed overhaul by 78.26. However, the overlong list of signed artists could probably stand to be pared down a little. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping this article for now. If this school fails general notability guidelines, renomination is warranted. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree International School, Kolkata[edit]

Oaktree International School, Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination. per the new guidelines … please specify specific guidelines.Following the nominations of several other schools … what other schools? All vague and not specific. And has WP:BEFORE been read ? I see no sign of an attempt to tag the article as having problems of otherwise resolve per c#3 … If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as .... Bigdelboy (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me elaborate. I tagged the article as a prod, which was declined with the reason "accredited secondary school", which is not a notability rationale (neither has been addressed in the article). Other schools refer to a series of other schools that I recently deleted in AfDs as the closing admin (check my deletion log). An online search shows no relevant sources apart from school-related ones and some passing mentions. Therefore, fails the GNG. --Tone 07:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A declined PROD should not lead to a "red mist" AfD avoiding a proper WP:BEFORE. There is still no preciseness of the policies/guidelines being alluded to which is poor example of an Wikipedia Admin referring to a educational institution deletion when these people should be encouraged towards precision. Recent Schools brought up for consideration of deletion have been typically Asia related in the run up to Christmas new year and have possibly swamped Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. It is actually unclear to me, but I am stupid, that anyone actually has a deletion log, though I guess the information may be gleaned from here [5].Bigdelboy (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Nomination just vindictive. References show it was notable ('to be noted') in the past therefore is always notable. If it were truely not to be note, the nominator has a obligation to prove he has done due diligence, online in English and this case Bengali and in paper sources in the relevant local archives. ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion we are alerted to other articles that have been falsely deleted due the misunderstanding, in the spirit of NPOV I suggest an admin locates them and a full review is done.ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article fails to meet GNG. Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheios[edit]

Pantheios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Run-of-the-mill free software which doesn't pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete long overdue. Orientls (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a cool library, but for independent sourcing, I was only able to find brief mentions in a few books. It is a reasonable search term, but I don't see a good target for a selective merge or a redirect. Hence, delete. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 05:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. does not pass WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Viral Fever. Redirecting per Mattg82. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvf cubicles[edit]

Tvf cubicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Viral Fever which already has info on this series. Mattg82 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Thanks AllyD for your due diligence. Deleting this article for the time being. WP:REFUND applies if notability is met. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totem Dance Group[edit]

Totem Dance Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article, created around the same time as the Russian article was deleted as advertising. The article content remains stagnant at 2013 though the group themselves have later involvement in events such as Gogolfest, with works by Meredith Monk and Vlad Troitsky. However I am not finding better than passing mentions (e.g. Odessa Review, 2017). Clearly this has been an active company in its locale but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NORG / WP:CREATIVE notability. AllyD (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Partsch[edit]

Wolfgang Partsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: He appears to be author "Supercharging Supply Chains" book, for clarity's sake. It shows 371 cites on GScholar, with two other papers at 25 and 14 cites, and the rest at <10. @Kongolese: it would be helpful if the article was more specific about what the references supported. Text-only refs are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but the current sourcing in the article leaves some ambiguity, as there's not much info regarding the depth of the coverage, and multiple sources are sometimes used to demonstrate very broad statements (e.g. refs 7, 8, & 9). Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above, with the added conclusion that those numbers would not indicate a major role developing the field. PK650 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping for the time being based on Toughpigs rationale. Please consider improving, or reaching out to an editor with knowledge of Chinese media, to help improve it. If that fails, feel free to WP:PROD. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Destined One[edit]

The Destined One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see some coverage of the show's crossover with a fictional show, My One in a Million, on a marketing site and in an interview with one of the One in a Million cast members. It's not a lot, but it's a little hard to judge just by searching in English. I expect that an editor who knows Chinese media would find more coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squidbillies characters[edit]

List of Squidbillies characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; just a whole bunch of unsourced unencyclopedic information which does not seem to pass GNG or LISTN. Could merge to a new section at Squidbillies but none of this content is actually appropriate for merging given that it is original research. Happy New Year! // J947 ^(c) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nom's opening statement is incorrect. Recent AfD deletions did not in-fact decide that. They were for lists of "guests" or "vehicles" or "elements", but not characters, which are a something that is part of any TV series. The article needs to be better, that is without a doubt, but without that, the series lacks important information. --Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but that was two movies, where all about the characters can be covered in the main articles. But this is an LoC for a show running 12+ seasons. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or editorial merge The only character list for a long running TV show. Of course, if there was local consensus to trim&merge it back to the show article (which doesn't summarize the characters at all except for in a table), I wouldn't be opposed either. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Neither of the comments opining to keep have explained how this list passes our notability guidelines. J947 ^(c), at 23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. I'd say selective merge, but the character list appears to have nothing salvageable. This should be started from scratch in the main article's character section, focusing on the main characters. TTN (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラP 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it doesn't fit in the main article, spinoff articles are always created for character lists for notable series. Dream Focus 10:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They're not. Now maybe they ought to be (I'd support that), but our most recent practice is that LoC articles are being zapped wholesale, even for multi-book series with Hollywood movies (Mortal Engines, Kill Bill, Tolkien). Why should Squidbillies get a pass, especially when it's itself so lacking in sourcing? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They are over 90% of the time. Its about whatever random few people notice and show up at an AFD that determines things. Category:Lists of characters in American television animation shows a lot of these articles, plus many other categories showing additional things like this exist. And of course Tolkien's characters have their own long detailed list at List of Middle-earth characters. Mortal Engines has its character list at Fever_Crumb_(series)#Characters. As for Kill Bill, that's just two movies, and the main article list the characters in cast. Not that much to write about most of them. One has their own article though The Bride (Kill Bill). Dream Focus 17:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters For that matter, Kill Bill is about four or five films (depending on which you count).

  Why did you say four or five? The navbox shows only two Kill Bill films. ミラP 03:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have time to type up all the recent Tolkien deletions, character lists and everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What the hell?! Kill Bill is two films. And listing every single obscure character that was briefly mentioned in a single sentence in of Tolkien's books, is what was deleted, not the main character list article. As for the Mortal Engine list that was deleted, one person nominated it, one person showed up and said delete, and no one else voted on what to do with it, so it got deleted. Must not have been anything to it that wasn't in the main article, I don't know, since its gone now and doesn't matter. You can't use that as an excuse to erase thousands of character list articles of course. In most AFDs they are kept. Dream Focus 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kill Bill shares a universe and characters with other films, some of which are out (Reservoir Dogs) and a couple of follow-ons which are supposed to be somewhere in production. But Tarantino likes backstory, and he likes his backstories to join up offstage.

  The Mortal Engines character list was deleted on almost no involvement by other editors (this is called "unanimous consensus" on Wikipedia) and not even a comment from the closing admin. This is why I've been calling at AfD for fomalisation of a minimum quorum for such an AfD to be valid. TTN (and just a couple of others) is listing vast numbers of fiction-related articles at AfD and unless you happen to have that exact article watchlisted, there's no notification across the main articles for a series. So we're losing fiction articles like crazy, on the votes of just half-a-dozen editors.

  Still, it's better than Commons, where CfDs are equally narrowly visible, then they expand afterwards so that category trees which had never even been mentioned in the CfD get deleted too. Then they hold a second CfD, after the deletion.

  But, Squidbillies? Sourcing, much? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andy Dingley: FWIW I've put a bit of advice at Dream Focus's UTP. ミラP 03:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to see an argument that this passes our notability guidelines here. We really can't just keep this article how it is I think (and I'm no proponent of TNT). J947 ^(c), at 22:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. For such a long-running show, there is surprisingly little RS about the characters. I guess cable cartoons for grownups are dime-a-dozen nowadays. I realize there's an OTHERSTUFF argument that could be made w/r/t other lists for other cartoons, but I don't think OTHERSTUFF is strong enough on its own to save a sourceless list. ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- more poorly sourced fancruft. It serves no navigational purpose and there's no encyclopedic content to merge. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article substantively fails WP:V being mostly OR. There is basically nothing to merge of any value that's sourced. And as Reyk notes, it's pretty much a bloated mass of fancruft. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Jalili[edit]

Saman Jalili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Although I don't know Persian, the sources look like simple database listings with very little significant coverage. A google search shows up nothing of an reliability. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 19:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete this is another cross-wiki hoax by "Mh6ti" Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting based on the investigations of participants. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Dol-Combourg[edit]

Duchy of Dol-Combourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Delete - The amount of details in the article cited to absolutely no sources is certainly suspicious. But, even if this was not an intentional hoax, but a well-meaning mistake, it still should not be retained due to the utter lack of sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lots of real (if obscure) people mentioned but none of them link back to this mythical duchy. No sources at all despite the apparent depth of coverage. Looks like a hoax. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: This source[6] finds mention of a seigneury (not a duchy) of Dol-Combourg, but this source itself is poorly referenced and self published. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding and not a hoax, but it is still wrong and wholly unsourced, so deletion remains appropriate. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another source (in French) confirming the seigneurie Dol-Combourg (although French Wikipedia speaks only of "des seigneurs de Combourg" [[7]] can be found here.[8]. This book confirms the French list saying "après la mort de Jean, seigneur de Dol-Combourg, en 1162..." so Jean died in 1162 which is what French Wikipedia says. This page has a completely different list for this imaginary Duchy. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a real castle, the Château de Combourg, so it's not likely to be a hoax. More likely some sort of linguistic confusion , and possibly variations in the rank/title of the seigneur over the centuries.IceFishing (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The content appears to be a cut and paste job from Ancient Diocese of Dol. As I read the article, it was clear to me that it was not about a Duchy, but about a bishopric, claiming metropolitan status. The conflict with Tours described may have been part of a counterpart of the attempts by the medieval Dukes of Brittany to be independent of the French crown. This would not haver been part of the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Charlemagne, or possibly one of his early descendants, before the title of Emperor became attached to the German ruler. It is not exactly a hoax, but probably fake news or a variety of distorted history. I wondered about a redirect, but think plain deletion is better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. It's not clear it actually existed. If this were fictional, it could be notable like Grand Fenwick, but it's too difficult to source. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Park[edit]

Vision Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Short lived company before being merged into others. Nothing to suggest this passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Mattg82 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mattg82. Can't see if any redirect/merge would be needed. Orientls (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting based on the rationale presented by Beemer69. Thanks for evaluating those sources. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potion-making: Practice[edit]

Potion-making: Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a Dice Tower review by Tom Vasel which would count as an independent reliable source as does the Forbes Russia review [9]. [10] also appears reliable. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent coverage, just blogs and niche gaming sites. The Forbes piece is a brief mention by a contributor and Meoples is a non-notable WordPress page. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping based on information presented by the community. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antin Infrastructure Partners[edit]

Antin Infrastructure Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "raised €3.6 billion" in 2016. Seems a bit more than a start-up to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press release claim, and is it extraordinary for this type of company, or just business as usual? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that if you are going to own that much of the UK gas distribution system and 40% of all the trains in the UK you need to raise a lot of money. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a secondary source in Les Echos ([11]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the routine-sounding headlines, the two articles from FT [1][2] and this article from Reuters [3] are not merely 'routine business announcements' but are substantial coverage of investments (historic and recent), detailing significant impacts on transportation and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Telegraph article [4] is also substantial coverage, and Antin did not provide comment to the authors. I'm not sensing churnalism from any of the aforementioned articles, and given the scale of the investments they make, I've no doubt that there's more to be uncovered. When I first stumbled on the entry in October I initially thought the PROD made sense, but in further digging, the subject easily passes the requirements of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. The sources offered above do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. For example, [12] is an interview and does not count towards notability. It includes: Our approach is the same as that of a traditional private equity fund," explains Alain Rauscher. Our objective is to create value by providing financing to companies to develop them.; His interventions are invariably subject to the filter of what he calls the "infra-test". Etc. The Reuters source [13] is a routine announcement: Antin Infrastructure Partners has hired investment banks to kick-start a potential $1.5 billion-plus sale of one of Britain’s biggest gas pipelines, banking sources and an executive at a subsidiary of the buyout fund said.. I don't see notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Disagreed on Reuters. I understand the first two paragraphs being chalked off as a routine announcement, but in the 6 paragraphs that follow the authors go on to discuss the history of Antin's acquisition of CATS, and PE attention to infrastructure in the region, making the piece more substantial than a routine announcement. Any thoughts on the two Financial Times articles linked above? Pegnawl (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree. It is not apparent that those paragraphs are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. For me, based on the fact that it starts out as an announcement, there's nothing to indicate that the whole thing isn't an announcement. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe I'm charitable, but it seems just as likely the author leveraged a routine announcement to segue into a more substantial article. Agree to disagree; striking Reuters, do you have feelings on the two Financial Times [1][2] or the Telegraph [4]? That the Telegraph calls this company an "infrastructure giant" gave me pause, and this was the point at which I decided to de-PROD. Or maybe it was the "owns 1/3 of all trains running in the UK" from the FT that struck me as notable. Pegnawl (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Keep, having reviewed the updated article I am satisfied that both The Telegraph and the FT articles broadly meet the criteria for establishing notability. Strike previous !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the company already meets the GNG. As it does more deals there will be more and more coverage so I see little advantage in deleting now only to have it recreated in a year. It helps that the article is in no way promotional and not likely to become so as they don't need us to promote them. It is perfectly normal for journalists to leverage press releases and other primary sources as the basis of a new secondary source as, for instance, The Telegraph did here. They have to base their stories on something and in my experience neither The Telegraph nor the FT are in the business of simply repeating press releases. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some more articles. When the sources are viewed in their entirety, they do amount to significant coverage. Moreover, no one seems to be able to view the FT articles. Unlike most companies, private equity firms generally try to avoid publicity. After all, buying up infrastructure in multiple countries with a view to making it more efficient, performing some "financial engineering" and reselling it for profit is never going to endear you to the general public, especially those who think that infrastructure should be in the public sector anyway. We have a duty to our readers to provide factual NPOV articles on such companies, particularly those who have raised Euro 8 billion. Edwardx (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V is not negotiable. And it's not been rebutted that much of this content is not verifiable. Sandstein 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of El Chavo del Ocho episodes[edit]

List of El Chavo del Ocho episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Bradford  (Talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - episode lists are an important part of TV series articles. The format of that article is horrendous, but that is because it's not using ((Episode table)) and ((Episode list)). --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the list of episodes could be saved, how can we know on which day the episodes were released and what would be the lost episodes? According to this page, some episodes were lost during the 1985 earthquake in Mexico and with them enough information about it. And this information is only found in forums, YouTube videos and untrusted pages.  Bradford  (Talk) 14:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding what is lost vs not lost, that is not a core aspect of an episode list so it if we don't have info, just don't add it. Regarding the dates, while I'm sure somewhere this information is found, I'd rather have sub-optimal sources like [14] or even [15] that have the air date information, then not have them at all. --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so we only have a broadcast date for some seasons and episodes, but not for the rest? However, more than that, there is too much information that is not backed by reliable sources. IMDb is not a really reliable source. IMDb and MSN claim that the series had 9 seasons, but in vecindadch.com only 7 seasons appear plus some lost episodes, so it is impossible to know in which order the episodes go or which were the first to air. However, in Spanish Wikipedia and the others a total of 8 seasons appears, and in Spanish Wikipedia they erased the list of episodes for several obvious reasons[16].BRADFORD talk 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Episode lists are normally fine, but this one is so over-detailed with fancruft, not to mention the contradictory and unreliably sourced information about the lost episodes. If there is that much content that is so utterly unverifiable, then it shouldn't be included. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to YG Entertainment. Lourdes 17:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure (band)[edit]

Treasure (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They band changed their name. There is a previous Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasure 13 but the keep rationale was really dodgy. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the fact they exist doesn't mean that it is notable. No significant coverage, just press releases - they haven't debuted anything yet. Evaders99 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to YG Entertainment - group is associated with that company. I have no doubts that they will be more notable in the future so I think keeping it to preserve edit history would be helpful. lullabying (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above for now, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mattg82 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping this article. If folks want to see it merged/split/whatever please consider discussing in the relevant WikiProject and/or on the talk page of the article. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Football player[edit]

Football player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge useful content appropriately to various football articles, or refine scope and rename (probably to health risks of association football, if such an article doesn't already exist somewhere). The bulk of this article pertains to health risks of playing association football. Another substantial portion is dedicated to wages of association football players. The lead provides an absurd spread of focus, claiming the article is about every person who plays everything from gridiron to soccer to rugby. Other sports redirect to the main article on the sport if you append "player" to the name. We definitely don't need an article about players of a broad range of distinct sports that are only related by geographical naming conventions. Skeletor3000 (Skeletor3000) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and merge content to relevant codes of football. Makes no sense to try to collate this material and "compare" apples to oranges. Aoziwe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Probably then replace with a disambiguation page pointing to all the football player codes. Note also Footballer redirects to here. Aoziwe (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I see nothing wrong with the article, in fact I think this can be expanded and improved. I also see a perfectly valid entry for wikipedia here. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd like to hear an explanation as to why lumping athletes in unrelated or barely-related sports into a single article seems like a good way to organize information. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's already been a split discussion that would address that concern, that had support at Talk:Football player#Split proposal. How would your suggestion to merge, address those issues? Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify with your question, as my suggestion above for how to merge seems to already contain your answer. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You voted merge - which would eliminate this article. I'd think Keep would make more sense ... and then follow the earlier proposal to split the gridiron stuff elsewhere. Your comments seem to contradict your merge vote. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of the problems with the lede doesn't imply those are the only problems present. The bulk of the article talks about injuries to players of association football. The career section is straight drivel, starting with descriptions of the sport itself and then continuing with the asinine explanation that athletes start as amateurs before becoming professional. The wage section would be more appropriately presented in articles on individual athletes or leagues, and likely already exists in those places in many instances. If it's kept, non-injury content should be removed, and this article's title should be "Health risks in association football" or something similar. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DINC. Nothing precludes fixing the article during the vote. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge agree with (Skeletor3000). Merge into athlete to prevent proliferation of similar pages such as Rugby player, badminton player etc. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is well referenced, and also exists in dozens of other languages. I see no basis here for deletion or merging. There was however a relatively recent discussion at Talk:Football player#Split proposal to split the American/gridiron information from the soccer information, that hasn't yet been done, despite support, that would address any multi-sport concerns. Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - absolutely fine. GiantSnowman 20:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It offers specific discussion about the player of the sport that makes no sense to merge into another article. No need for basic information about the various sports that are discussed in other articles to be included in this article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well referenced, seems notable. I don't share the multi-sport concerns, as football is ambiguous internationally. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have reread the article and there are some aspects that I think are bordering on WP:TNT. The articles terminology jumps between generic "football" and often "association football" misleading the reader. Some of the references, while they use the word "football", would appear to be actually referring to "association football", yet they are cited against the generic word "football". For an article that includes "medical information" I think such needs a very thorough review if the article is allowed to stay. Also, it needs to properly refer readers to far more detailed articles such as Concussions in sport. There is also non clear discussion in other areas, eg, wages, referrring to "top leagues" when it means "top association football leagues". Aoziwe (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's good for a laugh. In addition to the melange of undefined types of football, some highlights - "Sport person", "Once signed, some learn to play better football", the insertion of the isolated sentence about penalty kicks, and the random list of body parts at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Earth[edit]

Nu Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did research before I seconded the prod, and I found nothing even approaching notability for this place. Hog Farm (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless waste of time with the deprod, sigh. Fails GNG, clear as day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (A7). (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Newton (academic)[edit]

Michael Newton (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piumi Hansamali[edit]

Piumi Hansamali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unnecessary ref bombing removed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 thanks for that imperative action.Celestina007 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WeTalkWiki, okay so listen Ref bombing in order to fool the unsuspecting editor with a host of unreliable sources & usage of Facebook & Instagram as means of proving notability says loudly how non notable subject of our discussion is. You may need to read the WP:GNG policy before creating other articles in future. Lastly the manner in which you have placed this references here are very disruptive & hurtful to the eyes, well at least mine. Cheers.Celestina007 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I mentioned facebook here coz it's official facebook page of that movie Wassanaye Sanda(its not a reliable source). I think you have lack of knowledge about finding articles(maybe your lazzyness. don't do it again). You know some websites mentioned here are famous site of that country. If you don't know about things, you should remain silent otherwise you will be disappointed(with respect). I dont know how these ref hurts to you but after watching these anyone can say she's notable and your investigation about things are very poor. Thank you! WeTalkWiki 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeTalkWiki Do lay off the personal attacks & calling me lazy, which I am anything but, is quite uncivil & constitutes a personal attack. So back to business, we need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that someone or something is notable without which we are unable to tell or verify notability claims. Now get to work & come up with those reliable sources. Cheers.Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How that is personal attack? Akward? Lazzness is a word which means someone who doesnt do his or her work in correct manner(according to my knowledge). How is that attack? Im out of idea? Yeah. I'm in the business. Thank you! WeTalkWiki 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Google search (in English) turned up a whopping three pages of nothing. The citations in the article itself are a joke and the links that were ref bombed herein are not reliable sources, especially IMDb, Instagram, Facebook and anything with "wiki" in it. On a side note, WeTalkWiki, please do not attack other editors while hiding it behind some lame excuse, as such incivility will ultimately get you blocked. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She is not a popular actress in Sri Lanka. Although her modeling career and other sexual gossips spread throughout the country, I do not think, without proper description there cannot be any article for her. She has only appeared in two television serials, one film and another film with uncredited role. So as to this date, the article is useless. Gihan JayaweeraTalk 9:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete In fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, current referencing and a WP:BEFORE search pulled up nothing even close enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom - and fails WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In regard to her acting career, the actress does not currently meet WP:NACTOR—may be WP:TOOSOON. I have no comment on her notability as a model and defer to other editors on that. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 89[edit]

Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No it isn't.--Petebutt (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”No it isn’t” is not exactly a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't definitely clearer that it passes WP:GNG now. Feel better now.--Petebutt (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I was still hoping for a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article again; this incident has now led to call for new safety policies at another airport (Sea-Tac) to have a response for surrounding communities if a fuel dump on the community occurred there. This incident is now driving discussions of safety reforms beyond the neighborhood where it occurred, which further demonstrates likelihood of lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The procedures were not at fault. They were not adhered to!! Sea-Tac only knee-jerking. We don't have articles on wikipedia because someones knee jerked!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles about incidents on Wikipedia because they led to policy or procedure changes, though. If this incident is driving new demands for emergency response plans specific to fuel dumping on densely populated areas near major airports, and is the catalyst for that demand for change, that alone makes this incident notable. For determining notability it doesn’t matter if you think new ERPs are really needed in your opinion, it only matters that calls to action driven by this incident exist, which at this point they do. If that never materializes into meaningful change and this incident fades into obscurity, this page can be re-nominated for deletion in a year or two, but for now there’s clearly sufficient indicia of notability and deletion is inappropriate. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Likely to stay relevant in the media for quite some time due to the controversy and possible ramifications. SounderBruce 06:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge, as above. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pontificalibus and Shelbystripes. This is very much not a routine incident. ansh.666 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as discussed above; even if the incident ultimately results in changes to aviation safety regulations, these are best discussed in the article about fuel dumping. Carguychris (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that would conflict with the usual policy that large aircraft incidents are notable if they result in changes to regulations or procedures. Why the inconsistency? Shelbystripes (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep highly unusual incident (fuel dumped on children's playground, causing casualties), generated significant media attention. Will likely have an impact on aviation regulations. Brycehughes (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This clearly meets GNG and is a very historic event, especially with the fuel being dumped over a school and kids getting hospitalized. 73.91.117.24 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An unusual incident that received international coverage. There's an investigation and CNN is reporting that a lawsuit has been filed, so there's probably going to be additional coverage. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It passes WP:GNG now --AGTepper (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't oppose a review later on after all the coverage blows over, but for now the event is gaining more and more coverage each day. With what looks like a major upcoming lawsuit, I'd wait. Plus it seems to pass GNG as of now anyways so a review may be unnecessary in the future. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While dumping fuel is a common occurrence (because planes must dump fuel in order to land shortly after takeoff as the plane would be too heavy to land full of fuel), the way the pilot dumped fuel in this flight is very uncommon and has caused injuries. Pilots are not supposed to dump fuel at such low altitude, and not over populated areas. The breach in protocol makes this flight notable for a Wikipedia article. Banana Republic (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The plane dumped fuel over elementary schools, injuring people on the ground. As they are not supposed to do this, this makes this incident notable enough to be an article. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly unusual incident with relatively high amounts of media attention for said reason. Not a normal fuel dump. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:NOTNEWS, yet it's an unusual enough event involving a plane mishap that didn't involve a crash for a change, and has gotten enough national coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merging, as alternatively suggested, would require reliable sources for the content to be merged, and there's no indication that any exist. Sandstein 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanx Commonwealth races[edit]

List of Humanx Commonwealth races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2009 I removed this information from the main article, Humanx Commonwealth, where it was too crowded, to make it into this spinoff article. I have created a wiki for this series and done a full history export of this article to it https://humanx-commonwealth.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Humanx_Commonwealth_races to preserve the information. Dream Focus 16:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN or merge to Humanx Commonwealth#Major species. Lists of fictional planets/places/objects/etc. are being mowed down by the bushelful, and rightly so. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles alien races[edit]

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles alien races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete truly an example of fictional minutia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT someone is welcome to merge to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles if they think there is some encyclopedia value. Wm335td (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- excessive, poorly sourced fancruft. It has no notability as a standalone article, and no other article could possibly be improved by merging this into it. Reyk _YO! 02:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft all the way. Good Lord, what's next, a list of the TMNTs' preferred pizza flavors? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Rooms[edit]

Dungeon Rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per available sources, or merge to List of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay publications. BOZ (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOZ, on every AfD you state the same "Keep per available sources", but you never actually engage the nomination statement or provide actual sources to establish notability. Could you please have an actual discussion instead of a straight !vote? I understand that you, as the one that created all these articles, wants to keep them, but the amount of articles you have created which have been either deleted or redirected is rather worying, and AfD statements like this do nothing to indicate that you actually understand (or care) about what should and shouldn't have a separate article. Fram (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Fram: BOZ also voted "keep" without explanation on To Court the King as well. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay publications per above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As mentioned by the nom, the RPG.net reference is not valid as a reliable source, which leaves only the single review. One valid source is really not enough to pass the WP:GNG. As the product is not notable, and as it has such a generic title, I don't see it being useful as a Redirect, as proposed. Rorshacma (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one review is not enough to establish notability, and the title is too generic to redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more a product review and promotion PenulisHantu (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added a new independent reference, the French site Guide du Rôliste Galactique (aka Le Grog). Two independent sources (Dragon and Le Grog) would suggest notability.Guinness323 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Le Grog does not appear to be a reliable source, but a user-generated one. The page, in question, appears to be nothing more than a basic set of information on the product, and then a user review. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Guide du rôliste galactique (GRoG) is not a user-generated site, it is an on-line encyclopedia about role-playing games created and administered by an association of the same name. It has been a fixture of the French role-playing scene since 2000. The reviews attached to some of the game descriptions are moderated user-generated reviews, but the encyclopedic content is created and maintained by GRoG. You can find more information on the French Wikipedia site at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_du_roliste_galactique. If you don't speak French, the Google Translate service via Chrome does an adequate job.Guinness323 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and the non-user review portion of the linked page is, as I said, nothing more than a database entry on the game's basic information, no different than the already mentioned RPG.net source. It shows that WP:ITEXISTS and nothing more. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Note that Guinness323 gets specifically invited to these AfDs, and that analysis of Le Grog has been done at other AfDs as well, to no avail. It is a good website, but it is basically a controlled wiki, and doesn't give any more notability than e.g. IMDb does for films, Discogs for music, or Boardgamegeek for boardgames or rolaplaying games. Fram (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Le GRoG is a database only in the sense that its editors list and describe role-playing games and books that are considered good enough enough for inclusion. Not nearly everything makes the grade, only the items that the administrators feel are noteworthy. Yes, the list of inclusions is large (over 8000 at present), but the universe of role-playing games is large, and growing larger each year. The site is independent of any games company or organization, and being nominated for their "GRoG d'Or" (Golden GRoG) annual award for game of the year is touted on both sides of the Atlantic as a significant achievement. (Example here from the American company Posthuman Studios: https://eclipsephase.com/eclipse-phase-nominated-grog-dor )Guinness323 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If the site had actually given this product that award, you might have an argument. But it didn’t, and the only information it contains regarding it is a bare bones straight description of the product. That is not significant coverage, and does absolutely nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable with poor sourcing as a result of no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very poor discussion, but the (cursory) deletion request makes compelling arguments. The article is indeed highly promotional, and would be speediable per WP:G11: "Madonna’s team of highly specialized physiatrists, hospitalists, therapists, rehabilitation nurses, clinicians and researchers work with the most advanced technology and equipment to help each patient achieve the highest level of independence", "the facility begins to earn its reputation for excellence". Moreover, the article is unsourced, save for a broken link to some directory. Core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V, therefore mandate deletion. The article can be recreated by an editor without a conflict of interest if they manage to find reliable third-party sources for the topic. Sandstein 09:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital[edit]

Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - barely makes my standards for hospitals; it has over 200 beds. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NHOSPITALS Wm335td (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The article clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:NHOSPITALS. It may well be possible to improve it, but at the moment it is more like advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exalted Saviour[edit]

Exalted Saviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - voicing Walter Görlitz the nom, I see mentions but in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - From my understanding, there needs to be coverage by at least three notable sources. Of which, I have supplied. There is many sources that are blogs, but there are at least three to four magazines that cover the band as well. Metalworker14 (Yo) 11:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Metalworker14: There has to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. http://dougvanpelt.wixsite.com/heavens-metal-mag/single-post/2018/09/12/EXALTED-SAVIOUR-to-Rerelease-Blood-Sacrifice-on-New-Label may qualify as van Pelt is the founder and a reviewer for Heaven's Metal. A track listing of an album does not meet that requirement. The remainder are blogs, hobbyist, metal music enthusiasts, or otherwise poor sources. Which are the three you thought qualified? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Walter Görlitz: I believed that The Metal Resource was a reliable source and The Metal Onslaught's mention was reliable as well. I know there was an article covering the band in The Metal Onslaught, but I think that something happened to a lot of the website prior posts. It may be able to be found in Archives. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 02:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that. What on https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us makes you think this is a professional review site? The brief mention of future work (with poor grammar: "has officially began work") and who exactly is mason7310? You can see why I don't think Metal Onslaught is reliable. I've never questioned Metal Resource, but I've never liked it. There is no general editorial policy, and the author of the article, thrashboy, is the co-founder of the site, but with no editorial oversight or anything that would make me think it's a reliable source I can't imagine why his news post would be considered reliable. Shall I take them to RSN? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I requested input: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=933821382&oldid=933821274 The discussions do not last that long, so feel free to support their reliability there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass notability criteria. No outward notability outside of Metal fansites, not even an Allmusic listing as far as I can see. The page does not assert any musical achievements have been accomplished such as charting or getting awards. Mattg82 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidechain (ledger)[edit]

Sidechain (ledger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Scholar, I found a bit more than "zero coverage":

• https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&q=sidechain+ledger&btnG= (more like dozens).
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160330034A1/en
• https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZlUDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=-4m3KFPKWJ&dq=sidechain%20ledger&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=sidechain&f=false

Jhfrontz (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jhfrontz: this might constitute significant coverage from reliable sources, but this is not clear from the links alone. One-by-one:

• This is a list of search results. Which particular papers present significant coverage of sidechains?
• This is a pending patent. Per WP:PATENTS, "patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes". Thus is gives little credence to notability.
• This publisher of this book is a print on demand service. It still could be used as a source, but is less reliable than a peer-reviewed piece or book from an academic press.

Overall, it is unclear that these sources are any better than the "crypto sites" that @Retimuko: removed from the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BenKuykendall: Thanks for the clarifications.

• I'm assuming that CRC is a [more] reliable publisher (as in https://books.google.com/books?id=_HatDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=sidechain%20ledger&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=sidechain&f=false )
• There is at least one granted patent that references sidechains (e.g., https://patents.google.com/patent/US10438290B1/en?q=sidechain&q=ledger&oq=sidechain+ledger&page=1 ) though there isn't a single all-encompassing definition there (rather, several examples/properties of sidechains are mentioned).
• https://books.google.com/books?id=LchFDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA261&vq=sidechain&dq=sidechain&pg=PA261#v=snippet&q=sidechain&f=false (Princeton University Press -- though I think the actual definition of "sidechain" is masked in google books).
• https://books.google.com/books?id=fvywDAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=%22sidechain%22%20ledger%20peer-reviewed&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=sidechain&f=false (O'Reilly)

I'm not really sure how to proceed from this point -- should I continue identifying sources (and adding them to this (or the original article) page?). Also, I should re-state my disclosure: I work for a company that pioneered sidechains and thus I'm not sure how that should guide/temper my participation in this discussion. --Jhfrontz (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]