The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. These still exist, the article can be improved (over TNT) and it just needs attention. Please consider improving before anything else. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of re-education through labor camps in China[edit]

List of re-education through labor camps in China (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 has many of the same problems from the already deleted page "Datong city re-education through labor". The topic itself likely meets WP:NOTE as a whole, but has serious WP:NPOV issues without WP:V to back up claims (e.g. "Has some former drug users acting as staff" without citation as a note for one facility in Yunnan province). Many of the facilities on their own likely do not meet WP:NOTE.

The article's sources are all from before 2013, which is when the Re-education through labor program was ended in China - this article makes no mention of the change. The references themselves could be improved as well if edits are to be made to this article.

This is certainly a sensitive topic, and some of the facilities (those with their own, individual sources) could make for good articles on their own (e.g. Trisam RTL), but serve little use here coupled with hundreds of others here without citation or notability.

If proper sources could be found, the easiest thing to do may be just to delete this article in its entirety and create a new, more proper and verifiable one instead. (WP:TNT)

As was pointed out by Zanhe, a good solution/alternative to the article's deletion may be to Merge and Redirect to Re-education through labor, listing the properly sourced facilities there. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 23:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 23:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this is bad enough to deserve TNT. Ideally someone would work on cleaning it up and develop a clear inclusion criteria. We have comprehensive lists of subcamps of Nazi concentration camps (such as List of subcamps of Flossenbürg) despite the fact that many are not notable. buidhe 03:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP They did not close them down in 2013. The BBC has video footage of one they used to imprison Muslims and "re-educate" them to be proper Chinese. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps That's not the documentary I saw of theirs, that somewhere else. Anyway Xinjiang re-education camps show more about that. Need to fix the article, not delete it. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Re-education through labor. The few sourced entries can be merged into the main article, but most of the list is unsourced and unverifiable. The Xinjiang camps are a different topic, not part of the RTL system. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? They don't all do mindless brainwashing exercises, teach people why they must be a certain way, and forced manual labor in one form or another? Dream Focus 12:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Dream Focus, I understand the point you are trying to make here, but there is a difference between Re-education through labor and the Xinjiang re-education camps. Yes, both have to do with the penal system of China, but the re-education through labor program and the Xinjiang re-education camps are not the same. As can be seen in their respective articles, the re-education through labor program dealt with petty crimes on a national scale (until it was outlawed in 2013)^[1], whereas the Xinjiang re-education camps are officially stated to be for counter-terrorism efforts in Xinjiang province (which began in 2017)^[2]. If you do feel so strongly that the topics are the same, this is not the place to try and remove the distinction. (Wikipedia has separate articles on the two subjects for a reason...) Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Masanjia_re-education_through_labor_camp#Establishment says they previously did it to eliminate the Falun Gong religion which had tens of millions of followers. And now at Xinjiang re-education camps they have done it with 1 to 3 million Muslims. I recall them doing this to the Buddhist monks in Tibet, enslaving their monks to be tortured and used for slave labor. They held people for minor crimes, without trial, and used it to eliminate religions, doing this then and now. So it is the same thing. Dream Focus 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, really, just as Immigration detention in the United States and Internment of Japanese Americans are two different topics, even though they share many common attributes. They target different populations and exist(ed) in different periods. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an informative, important and perfectly valid list. Of course there are sources on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the contention that the re-education though labor program ended in 2013 is simply not factual, WP:RS have repeatedly found that statement to be as much of a lie as the promise that all the Xinjiang camp prisoners have been freed. I agree with buidhe that we should keep this consistent with the pages on forced labor and political re-education camps in other brutal regimes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I immediately see a lot of formatting issue with the citations, but noting that bad, as Buidhe noted above. No reasonable person could assert, with the the significant coverage this issue has gotten, that it's not notable. The major issue is whether it's a fork, or irrelevant as a list. That's a call on whether you like lists or prefer categories. I'm in favor of both, particularly when it would help our core readership, students. The remaining issues are not addressable at AfD, and a better forum would be the talk page or to temporarily block vandals. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 29 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 this one given info provided by DexDor. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Index of gaming articles[edit]

Index of gaming articles (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)

I'm struggling to understand what this index is even supposed to accomplish. It's not listed at Wikipedia:Contents/Indices or linked in the nav template at the bottom. Is it... just... every possible thing about games? It doesn't seem to distinguish between game concepts, individual articles about board and video games, types of games, people/companies who make games, people who play games, etc. It's just a (hopelessly incomplete) alphabetized list of everything that might have to do with games if you squint at it a little (and if it were complete, it would be hundreds of pages long). Outline of games seems to be this article but in a more organized and restricted fashion. Why does this exist? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep this seems like a pointless article. Really sloppy and lacking a defined purpose. Bluedude588 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and too self-referential. Possibly move to a wikiproject page if a wikiproject wants it. The keep arguments in the previous AFD (e.g. "an index of all gaming articles is an appropriate goal to accommodate navigation through the ocean of gaming subjects covered on Wikipedia") are very unconvincing. See also discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles. DexDor ^(talk) 12:58, 26 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 Wheel of Time (TV series),. Closing as a redirect due to WP:TOOSOON and a struggle to find sources that help the subject pass WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Rutherford[edit]

Marcus Rutherford (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 was converted to a redirect by a new page reviewer, a decision which was reverted by the initial editor who then started an RfC on the talk page. I closed that RfC (which had received no participation) as the forum for discussing article deletions and redirects is AfD, and thus I am bringing this here now. As it were, I agree with the original reviewer's decision to redirect the article to The Wheel of Time (TV series), as the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and all available coverage is mere mentions associated with their role in that upcoming series. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The subject is notable as per the first criterion in WP:ENT. Played in several productions and was nominated for an award in British Independent Film Awards 2018. Also WP:GNG does not apply as the subject has coverage in secondary reliable sources (which are linked in the article). Finally regarding the redirect: as User:Rosguill seems to agree with the redirect could you please cite the relevant reason from WP:RPURPOSE and address how redirecting to The Wheel of Time (TV series) does not violate WP:SELFRED? Hg03u (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ENT specifies that a subject should have multiple significant roles in notable works. Currently, the only clearly notable works listed are Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators, where Rutherford is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article and thus probably did not have a significant role, and Wheel of Time, which hasn't debuted yet so it's premature to judge whether Rutherford's role is significant (or if the show is truly notable; it could still be cancelled). It's possible that other works were notable, but the burden of proof is on you or another keep voter to demonstrate that.
  2. Winning an award is not a guarantee of notability (see WP:ANYBIO––only particularly significant and well known awards are shoo-ins), and newcomer awards in particular are a weak indication of notability. Given that Rutherford didn't even win, there's not much to go on here.
  3. Current sourcing is nowhere near GNG. Let's go through the sources:

  1. a tweet by Wheel of Time's account, which is not significant or secondary
  2. IMDb, which is not reliable (see (RSP entry)), significant, or secondary
  3. a casting announcement at Variety, which is secondary but is not significant as it is WP:ROUTINE

  As for why redirecting, it's pretty standard to redirect actors that do not meet notability guidelines to the articles about their most notable work, as they can be considered sub-topics of that article _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect They have not had "significant" roles in "multiple" notable productions. They seem to have only had a role in one notable production, but there is no evidence presented that they had a signifcant role in Shakespeare and Hathaway. The role in Wheel of Time may or may not be significant, but since it has not been released that remains to be seen. Even if it is significant, it will just be one role, so not fulfilling multiple significant roles in major productions. The current sourcing is all routine, not secondary or not reliable, so no where near passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Redirect: He has had significant roles, but the productions don't seem all that notable. It might be WP:TOOSOON, so I'd support a "Redirect" if most other editors do not vote "Keep/Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:TOOSOON, above discussion, and WP:CHEAP. He's just been cast in a new scripted series. We're at peak for scripted work right now, so it could be cancelled or maybe a runaway hit. Until this, he's never had any major role. A redirect will save the coding in case, while also allowing for our core readers to search for his name and finding something relevant. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 29 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. Appears to fail WP:PROF. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Alizadeh[edit]

Kaveh Alizadeh (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)

advertising for plastic surgeon , by COI contributor. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is not a prize that could lead to notability, for there were about 100 awards each year. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree about the award issue mentioned in the nomination. But there are sources here and there quoting him including Fox, Standard and Newsday. May be more could be found if looked into local Persian language. Lunar Clock (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the awards are non-competitive; the coverage is fleeting. No doubt he has improved people's lives, but he's not notable as are many other people who do good things. We almost never keep Associate Professors. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 29 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 weak keep. Sandstein 11:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Orebaugh[edit]

Angela Orebaugh (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 with no independent third-party coverage. Purely promotional article with added content from multiple single-purpose accounts associated with subject. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My searching elsewhere is not turning up anything that might amount to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Checking Worldcat, her books have truly extraordinary presence in libraries; Ethereal packet sniffing in 1882, [1] , Wireshark & Ethereal network protocol analyzer toolkit in 1458, Wireshark... in 900, the others in the hundreds. This is not a formal guideline for notability , but I think it ought to be, for it's certainly indicative of her importance. They are published by a major publisher: "Syngress" is the computer security imprint of Elsevier. [2]; Looking at Google Scholar, shehas two publication with over 300 citations each. [3]. This publication record is enough to meet PROf_GNG. One does not have to be formally a professor to qualify for that criterion.

  I note that most of her publications, including the most widely held, are e-books. Surely it isn't as much of an indication of notability for a library to have access to an e-book as it is for them to buy and hold a physical book? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think NPROF should apply here, because her work seems more of a how-to than academic. I could only find two reviews of her work: [4], [5], which shows that it is of limited academic importance although they may be very useful (which would explain high holdings). Also, her books have been mostly coauthored with others which limits the applicability to her personal notability. Altogether, I don't think that she makes it. buidhe 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although WP:NPROF is relevant, I don't think her citations are sufficient in this high-citation field to make C1 (particularly as an assistant prof), and I also don't see any of the other criteria. But I found a 3rd review of one of her books -- isn't that a weak pass of WP:NAUTHOR? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The books are not academic books, notability through them is not academic notability, and I think she does not pass our academic notability standards yet. There are two reviews linked above (the third link is not a review, just an entry in a database of publications), both of Intrusion Prevention and Active Response, and I found two more and linked them all in the article, together with an author interview for her Snort Cookbook and a review of unclear reliability (it appears to be on a blog) of a group of books including her Ethereal Packet Sniffing. If we only had reviews for the one book, I would think it wouldn't be enough, even with four of them, but the sources for the other two books push this over the threshold for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per the !vote just above. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all the arguments I would make have already been made above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as others have said, weak keep more as an author than an academic. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:15, 29 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 Jumping the shark#Marry Irving. We'll delete and redirect just to be safe. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying Irving[edit]

Marrying Irving (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)

Neologism tagged as potentially non-notable since 2012. As far as I can tell, the term has not received popular adoption or significant secondary coverage (the reference in the article, second external link, and a Slate.com article by sort-of-coiner Gene Weingarten are the only places I could find it used). Recommend redirection to Jumping the shark#Marry Irving, since that section pretty much hits the highlights of this article and covers it with a due amount of detail. (Also - thank you in advance to anyone who helps sort this, I have no idea what categories are appropriate here) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect per nom. While searching brings up a few usages of the term in the manner in which this article describes, its all either very trivial mentions or from non-reliable sources. Furthermore, its almost all in context of "Cathy" itself, rather than demonstrating that it ever had any widespread usage outside of that. The bits of coverage is probably enough that the proposed Redirect would be fine, but there is not enough for this neologism to have an independent article. This could have probably actually been boldy done without dispute, rather than going to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rorshacma, yeah, I wasn't sure whether boldly redirecting was appropriate, so I figured I might as well take it to AfD to be sure that there was consensus. creffett (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Rorshacma. PK650 (talk) 03:14, 28 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. We're going with delete on this one per the rationale provided by Ajf773, Bearian, Shelbystripes and Clarityfiend. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of firms engaged in the construction of the Canadian Fairmile B motor launch[edit]

List of firms engaged in the construction of the Canadian Fairmile B motor launch (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's content doesn't sufficiently merit its own article and can be merged into Canadian Fairmile B motor launch. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If the nominator is advocating merger, rather than deletion, why is this at Articles for Deletion? Did they attempt to discuss merger, by the usual talk: page discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No nomination reason given for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The reason is that I personally think isn't sufficiently notable enough to merit its own article per WP:IINFO. CatcherStorm ^talk 04:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you do favour deletion? Or merger? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator and WP:NOTDIRECTORY; this is not even close to a notable list worthy of its own article, and I don't think merging is appropriate because articles about ships shouldn't get cluttered with detailed lists like this either. Descriptions of the long lists of vendors that supplied parts for a particular ship are not generally notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. Summary only content could be listed in prose on the parent article. There is certainly no grounds for a list of every single contributor to this particular type of vessel. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT (too specific) and revert the premature merger to Canadian Fairmile B. That level of detail doesn't get used for aircraft carriers or battleships, so why would it be appropriate for a minor vessel? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do give this level of detail for aircraft carriers. They're each built at a single yard, we have (large!) articles on such yards. These boats were built instead across a large number of smaller yards, prefabricators and subcontractors. They're also a much larger number of boats. So an article on that topic is both notable much as shadow factory etc are, because the history of production in WWII is a major topic, and also best handled in an article like this. If anything, I'd possibly re-scope it from Fairmile Bs to Fairmiles in general, as I suspect that the same groups were involved across the same classes. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't have that level of detail. Who's responsible for the cowl ventilation for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), for example? The article sayeth not. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the argument that the list of shipbuilders might be relevant... but the list of equipment suppliers most certainly is not, and that 'addition' should definitely be reverted. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above discussion regarding SALAT, but also per WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. By sourcing entirely to three original sources, everything in this list is a synthesis or rewording of those reports. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 29 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tameer-e-Watan School Hasilpur[edit]

Tameer-e-Watan School Hasilpur (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 coverage found, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL. This is a small private school founded within the past 25 years. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 29 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. Speedy deleted as a hoax. Missvain (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Dinesia[edit]

Sultanate of Dinesia (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)

Recently created article about a government that I cannot prove actually exists. Probable hoax, but I'm not comfortable enough with my non-English language skills to speedy this. Hog Farm (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I boldly tagged as a G3 hoax, because a sultanate encompassing Saudi Arabia and Turkey as claimed obviously does not exist.----Pontificalibus 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pontificalibus: I'll tag Nasr al Din Abdulquddus III as G3, too, then since this figure is only referenced in regard to the "Sultanate of Dinesia". Hog Farm (talk) 19:01, 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 delete. Closed - article was deleted as a hoax. Missvain (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasr al Din Abdulquddus III[edit]

Nasr al Din Abdulquddus III (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)

I can find no proof that this figure, who is claimed to be the ruler of an unspecified location actually exists. My language skills are lacking, but typing this name into Google turns up nothing with this exact name. Possible hoax. Hog Farm (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nasir al-Din is an honarary title, searching the key word "Abdulquddus III" didn't give any sign of notability, hence the subject fails WP:GNGDelibolt (talk) 18:56, 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Write-only documentation[edit]

Write-only documentation (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)

Nonnotable hackers' in-joke tagged since 2011. Too few google hits ("we have omitted some entries very similar to the 73 already displayed") for hackerdoom; not even blogs. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Funny, but not notable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has as much notability as article content. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick search of GBooks shows this is a widely-known concept/meme in software engineering; I suspect most veteran programmers have heard of this. But all the sources I found are brief mentions, and even the cited source in the article is not in depth. While the concept is verifiable, I don't see any target articles where adding this would not violate due weight. Hence, delete. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:55, 24 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nordmann[edit]

Daniel Nordmann (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 independent sources cited to substantiate notability. I can find a lot of namechecks online but substantive reliable independent sources are elusive. Guy (help!) 17:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Voicing Guy as I can’t seem to find any in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources on subject of our discussion.Celestina007 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• del nn CEO, no info about achievements to judge notability. Staszek Lem (talk)
• Delete - when separated from the company (SBB Cargo) they were affiliated with, there is little to show the subject is individually notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per comments above. SIGCOV does not exist, therefore non-notable. PK650 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:GNG, WP:NOTRESUME. How did this page survive for over 12 years? Obviously written by a WP:SPA who was probably his employee and didn't disclosed the obvious COI. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons elf deities[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons elf deities (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 is a containment list for extremely trivial characters, but the list itself is too trivial to exist. It fails to establish its own notability as a grouping, and these characters are not important enough to justify an article split. There is no worth upmerging this to another list. The topic of D&D deities is worth talking about in the main setting articles of the various D&D settings, but there is no current justification that a massive list of all deities is needed to understand the franchise. TTN (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure gamecruft, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is gamecruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Like the other D&D deity lists, none of the entries are notable to pass the WP:GNG independently, and there are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the concept as a group in any manner that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. There is nothing here but primary sourced, in-universe plot information, so there is nothing that needs preservation or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More in-universe D&D cruft nonsense. It's getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a D&D guide. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge into Elf_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Religion. Unlike the other deities AfDs, where the proposed target was already overflowing with cruft and would not be improved by dumping more into it, this one has an obviously useful merge target. The religion section of Elf_(Dungeons_&_Dragons) is unsourced and rudimentary. It actually would be improved by incorporating a few sentences of this article and one or two of the most relevant sources. It would have to be a very selective merge; 99% of this list of deities is cruft. I would be against a lazy Ctrl-C Ctrl-V text dump. Reyk _YO! 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION, through of course a selective merge at first is not a bad idea, if the content is referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without any kind of merge. None of the content is sourced to reliable secondary sources, it's all sourced to in-universe splatbooks. A merge would be placing unreliable content in the D&D Elf article, which is not desirable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 31 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 CANO. Closing with a redirect. If someone needs to see a copy of the article to merge, just ask me and I'll help you out. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the North[edit]

Spirit of the North (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)

Appears to be a non notable album that fails WP:NALBUM. Has no sources since 2007. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CANO. As stated by the nom, the album fails WP:NALBUM, as there are no sources included in the article, and searches brought up no real coverage in any reliable, secondary sources. However, the band looks like it may be notable, and so their article serves as an appropriate redirect target. Though, if it is redirected, we might also want to change its name to Spirit of the North (album), or something similar, to distinguish it from other items with the same name, such as a recent video game. Rorshacma (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CANO per above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I’m inclined to keep as there undoubtedly are reviews from when the album was first released. And quite likely more information from interviews with band members since then.

  Additionally I think merging this to a discography list or section would be a disservice and help no one.

  • So far I’ve found:
  • this but I’m looking for more.
  • this and this covers track info and musicians. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like to congratulate Gleeanon409 for having the wherewithal to actually lift a finger and do what is called for in this kind of situation WP:BEFORE. In other words, use your google or favorite search engine and see if sources are available. Had the NOM, or anybody else checked in the previous 12 plus years, the waste of time for this AfD could have been avoided for all the rest of us. Some sources were dated after the initial tagging of the article, but they were available at the time of the nomination. Don't be so lazy. If you have the chops to nominate an AfD, you certainly have the chops to enter the name of this album in google. So I did do a WP:BEFORE, I found sources that enabled me to improve the article about a 1980 album and a band I had never heard of previously. We now have 5 sources so it cannot be proclaimed as unsourced, the original basis for the complaint does not exist.Trackinfo (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to tell whether the review at Progarchives.com is a user review or not ("special collaborator"?) Even if it is not, there is only a single other WP:SIGCOV mention, though whether that is actually a significant mention is unclear. I'd say the basis for the AfD certainly does still exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I'd like to add that ad hominem attacks are WP:NOTHERE style behavior especially when the sources still seem to be trivial coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As mentioned by Bearcat below, 4 of the 5 sources are not acceptable as reliable sources, and the fifth is trivial coverage. Its not that nobody "didn't have the chops" to search, its that we searched, found those results, and understood that they were not sufficient for this album to pass WP:NALBUM or the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this — but I did so over a decade ago, when Wikipedia's notability standards for albums were very different than they are today. At the time, albums were automatically accepted as notable so long as a notable band had recorded and released them, and didn't otherwise have to have any real notability claim or any meaningful sourcing beyond the ability to verify their existence. Those rules have since been tightened up significantly, however, and an album now does have to make a much stronger claim of standalone notability beyond just the ability to verify that it exists before a standalone article becomes warranted. But the new sources that have been added are not adequate: four of the five are directory entries that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that is real media is not about the album, but just mentions the album in the process of being about the band. And even the AllMusic entry that's present as an external link does not grant it a written review, but just provides its track listing — so it doesn't constitute evidence of notability either, because it amounts to just another directory entry. Greatest hits compilations can obviously still clear our notability standards for albums, in certain circumstances — but given that they represent a reissuing of previously available material rather than a new artistic statement and therefore usually get far less critical attention, it's harder than it is for a conventional studio album, so a greatest hits album needs to show a lot more than this to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. Deletion was never appropriate. Clearly reviews exist but are all but invisible being offline. A list of CANO’s albums and how they relate to each other should be preserved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:25, 24 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. Thanks for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Celebration[edit]

Joyous Celebration (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)

Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, as in the last AfD. Perhaps one potential sigcov towards GNG, along with several routine coverage articles about concert announcements, album announcements, streaming statistics, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as passes criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC with album releases on a Sony imprint, but more reliable sources are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. NMUSIC criteria do not automatically guarantee notability and no one seems to be able to find WP:RS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There maybe some offline sources but there is nothing available atm to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and help fix this dog's breakfast. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruna (company)[edit]

Bruna (company) (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)

Unreferenced claim of having 375 shops is not an official sufficient criteria for WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG, but I guess it does merit a wider discussion. Can anyone find any sufficient, in-depth coverage of this company or such? BEFORE shows some mentions in Dutch but google translate suggests they are mentions in passing/press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plain campaign to remove a high street book chain from Wikipedia. First an speedy deletion request (denied), than a prod attempt (removed by me) and now an AfD. Why is a chain with 375 book stores not E? Are you using AfD to get the article improved? The Banner talk 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not a major factor in determining notability; if you disagree take this to WP:NCOMPANY. At present, as stated, this article doesn't have much going for it. Having a bunch of outlets (and we are still missing an independent verification of this claim) is not sufficient to make a company notable. PS. Please read WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is to be preserved we need some independent references. Given the sort of operation it is maybe not in great depth, but I'd like to see some external coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like: Meer ruimte voor winkelbeleving, Bruna en AKO-moederbedrijf Audax gaan samen verder, Bruna overgenomen door moederbedrijf van concurrent AKO, Bruna wil meer brunaformule zien, Het nieuwe winkelen ([6], [7]), Aandeelhouders PostNL en ING schieten Bruna te hulp. Yes, all in Dutch. But that is not unlikely with a Dutch book chain... The Banner talk 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To speed things up, can you tell us which of those contain in-depth coverage, i.e. at least a paragraph (made out of at least several sentences), and not mentions in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability here, fails on referencing too. The current (one) reference looks to be a primary source, possibly a white page kind of entry—can't tell for sure, as it's in a foreign language. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for English languages sources here, as foreign sources are allowed. Replaced the source by an independent source. And added some other sources. The Banner talk 13:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah...no. A couple of press releases about the take-over/merge that both mainly focus on the parent company Audax (does it have an article?) and the industry as a whole don't really qualify for significant coverage. The financial report article showing the horrible state of the subject's financials verifies the company's existence, but not any notability; the obituary article about Henk Bruna does mention the company briefly, but not notably, and perhaps belongs at his article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you look at the sources? The Banner talk 15:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dutch is my native tongue, therefor I've little trouble reading the sources. The sources are of high quality. Meer ruimte voor winkelbeleving is discussed the Bruna formula in depth. This is an article in a respectable journal, written by a lector. The highest academic rank at a Dutch University of Applied sciences. Bruna en AKO-moederbedrijf Audax gaan samen verder is written by Floor Bauma, a respectable journalist. The first three paragraphs discuss Bruna in depth. Bruna overgenomen door moederbedrijf van concurrent AKO isn't a press release but an in depth article in a respectable newspaper. Intro and the first three paragraphs discuss Bruna in depth. Bruna wil meer Brunaformule zien is an in depth article in a respectable newspaper, written by the respectable journalist Elisa Hermanides. 13 paragraphs discuss Bruna and their legal trouble. Het nieuwe winkelen is a book written by Cor Molenaar, a professor at the Erasmus University. 1.5 pages in this book are dedicated to Bruna. Aandeelhouders PostNL en ING schieten Bruna te hulp has four paragraphs discussing Bruna. Nu.nl is one of the largest Dutch media outlets. Neither of those sources are press releases. Honestly, calling the work of respectable newspapers and their journalists press releases without merit, is offensive.
• To add more sources, Bruna wil 100 nieuwe winkels, ‘we zijn geen grijze muis meer’ written by Peet Vogels. The full article is about Bruna. Nu ook Bruna in zwaar weer in Algemeen Dagblad. Two paragraphs discussing Bruna. Written by the journalist Alexander Leeuw. Natuur12 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the comments of Natuur12. That the evidence of notability is not easily-accessible to most English speakers does make life a bit harder, because I cannot personally read the sources and so have to depend on the representations made by those who can. But the detailed representations above describe exactly the sort of sources we'd demand. Further, although having multiple locations does not inherently support notability, it does suggest that we ought to think hard about notability -- because one of the things that tends to happen when a company has hundreds of locations is that reliable sources start writing about them in some depth. If our initial review doesn't show that to be happening here, then that's... kinda weird, and so we should just be really sure that the problem isn't on our end (for example, that the sources aren't just all in, uhh, Dutch.) TheOtherBob 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - assuming good faith, this appears to be a large retail chain that passes WP:NCORP. It's written in a neutral tone, and has some sources. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one is on the edge but in my opinion just about meets the criteria as per WP:NCORP/GNG. Most of the !votes to Keep above seem to miss the key points when testing for notability. The test is not merely for "high quality" sources or whether the sources are written by a "respectable journalist". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of *significant* coverage with *in-depth* information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing *Independent Content* which is defined as follows: "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are *clearly* *attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In my opinion, the first reference discussing a conceptual model for Bruna meets the criteria. The second is based on an announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This third reference may not be a press release, but it is commentary on a press release and as such, none of the information on the company is Independent Content (clearly attributed etc) and fails WP:ORGIND. The fourth also fails since the information on the company is provided by information released by the company and quotations/interview with a director, Zeegers - therefore none of the information on the company is Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. There's an argument that the commentary on the legal troubles and subsequent appeal meets the criteria but in my opinion it doesn't. Also, doesn't matter a whit the "respectability" of journalists or newspapers once it is regarded as a reliable source. I was excited by the fifth (Book) reference but once you remove the information provided by the director Gelauff, there is nothing of significance remaining, fails WP:ORGIND. The sixth reference is entirely based on information provided by the company and fails WP:ORGIND. But there are a myriad of other sources such as Politics of Post Transformation, Franchising in the Economy 1978-1980, etc, which all have short but significant mentions of the company. This, coupled with the one good reference mentioned above, pushed it over the edge for me. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quality sources exist. The Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad are some of the best Dutch newspapers, and the company, in some form or other, (it's complicated) has been around since 1868. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 30 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. Closing based on the last word from Bearian. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Professional University[edit]

Apex Professional University (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 provides no evidence of notability, makes use of advertising language for its lead, and after some looking, I can't seem to find any RS neutral coverage of it that would help it satisfy WP:GNG (Please double-check that part, this is an indian university, and I imagine there may be a non-english article on it.) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I as well had trouble finding WP:RS using search engines, although I also did not peruse local press without English translations available. JamieWhat (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is it acredited or not? See WP:NSCHOOL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I hate to say this, but it reads like this is a diploma mill or seminary for vedic science. If it's not, then the article needs to be done over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 29 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 Leung Ting. Closing with a redirect due to failure of subject to pass WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International WingTsun Association[edit]

International WingTsun Association (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 page with no credible sources and doesn’t mean notability guidelines Australianblackbelt (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The promotional silliness can be fixed with some bold chopping, and I've added a very excellent article from China Daily in 2009.^[1] I can only assume there may be excellent coverage in Chinese as well, and so would be hesitant at this point to recommend deletion. Of course WP:CORPDEPTH is harsher than WP:GNG, but I think we don't need to bring down the hammer when there's national coverage. If the other sources don't add to enough, I would recommend a merge with wing chun or founder Leung Ting, not full deletion. JamieWhat (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Leung Ting I read the China daily the article is about Leung Timg it doesn’t make it pass WP:CORPDEPTH Jaxbrother (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Look at William Cheung’s Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association it is simply mentioned in Cheung’s article, it doesn’t have it’s own page even though it is more notable than Ting’s. Australianblackbelt (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamieWhat do you realize the subject claims to have 2000 clubs and 1,000,000 students, this is ridiculous. Jaxbrother (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ip Chun’s Ving Tsun Athletic Association is the largest for Wing Chun and it has no article not to mention William Cheung’s Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association has none, Leung Ting is using this article for propaganda the whole thing a a massive exaggeration. There is nothing to discuss here sorry. Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Leung Ting I have not found significant independent coverage of this organization to show it meets any notability criteria. There is no supporting evidence for the claim of having a million students and I find the claim unlikely to be true. However, although there is nothing to support having a standalone article on this organization, I would think a redirect to its founder is reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spike and Tyke (characters)[edit]

Spike and Tyke (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)

Not seeing any in-depth coverage, seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. Effectively unreferenced (PLOT+media apperances), BEFORE fails to show any in-depth analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comments and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I just added references from Don Markstein's Toonopedia, Who's Who in Animated Cartoons, The Encyclopedia of American Cartoons, and American Funny Animal Comics in the 20th Century. All of these are reliable sources with non-trivial real-world information. There is also material in Jeff Lenburg's The Great Cartoon Directors, Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons, and Walter Brasch's Cartoon Monickers: An Insight into the Animation Industry. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate which of those goes beyond WP:PLOT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are about plot at all. Did you look at them? Toonopedia is entirely real-world -- the dates and titles of cartoons in the series, when they moved beyond being bit players to their own solo cartoons, how they were used in comics, and how they informed the creation of another set of characters. The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons has information on the dates, titles and voices for the theatrical cartoons, and their inclusion in later television shows. American Funny Animal Comics in the 20th Century has information on their appearances in the comic strip and solo comic books, including differences between their characterizations in the cartoons and the comics. The Great Cartoon Directors and Of Mice and Magic have similar kinds of coverage. I don't think there's an in-universe word in any of them; I can't imagine why you think they fail WP:PLOT. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Tom and Jerry characters#Spike and Tyke for being a huge plot summary and listing trivial appearance info, with some obvious WP:OR mixed in. The characters should definitively be covered on en.wiki, but an entry in a character list would currently better satisfy WP:WAF than this undue spinout. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Fancruft. Sro23 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since more sources were added. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the improvements by Toughpigs in adding reliable sources to the article so that there is now multiple real world referencing which can be used to expand the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The above sources that I can search give basic, trivial coverage on the topic amounting to a sentence or two each. If the others give more in-depth coverage, the current state of the article fails to reflect it. TTN (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I belive these characters pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say we just have the article for spike and merge Tyke. Spike is the main antagonist to one of the most famous cartoons in history. I think that means we should keep this article with a few changes of course. 11S117 (talk) 3:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. One review does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL or [{WP:GNG]], even if it was written by E. Gary Gygax. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dankendismal[edit]

Dankendismal (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 short-lived fanzine (8 issues) that got one short review in a short-lived magazine (7 issues). The full review is this: "DANKENDISMAL is a mimeo D & D ‘zine from John Morrison, 327 MaylandAv., Moorestown, NJ 08057. It contains some interesting ideas, though it is ratherlacking in organization. It is well worth the bargain price of 10¢ plus a SASE, butuntil we see how it grows, we rate it UNDECIDED"

No idea how this is supposed to be a notable magazine, and the abundance of 10 Google hits[8] didn't really overwhelm me either. Fram (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One correction to the OP: Strategic Review only has seven issues because it was retitled The Dragon, the pre-eminent games industry journal for almost 30 years. The review in the pages of SR #6, while short, is by none other than Gary Gygax, co-developer of Dungeons & Dragons. For industry giant Gygax to take note of Dankendismal, however brief, is notable. The fact that Bowling Green University made the decision to archive a collection of the 'zine also suggests notability.Guinness323 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the correction. That a university library keeps some ephemera is standard practice and is not an indication of notability (heck, they may have been part of a large collection that was donated in toto, no indication that the uni went out of its way to get hold of this fanzine in any case). They have quite a few of these D&D fanzines in any case[9]. Hardly an indication of notability, just like an extremely short note about this, even by a notable (but not independent) person. Fram (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per input from Guinness323, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PRESERVE is not a catch all to just keep all content, regardless of notability or sources. And what WP:ATD are you proposing here? I don't think you can just cite an alternative to deletion, and have your alternative just be not deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Regardless of who wrote the review, it is still an incredibly brief, three sentence blurb. It is also, seemingly, the only source available regarding this minor publication. That single, brief source is, alone, not enough to come close to passing the WP:GNG. Notability is also not inherited, so the fact that Gygax wrote three sentences regarding it does not confer any special bonus notability to those three sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough media coverage however if it was a pricey collectible it might be notable but the is no evidence of that, doesn’t help that it was a short run of publications. Jaxbrother (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one review is not enough to establish notability. Devonian Wombat talk) 01:59, 31 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Cause[edit]

Paragon Cause (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)

Recreation of an article about a band which was deleted a year ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon Cause, but has not shown or reliably sourced any stronger claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Working with a prominent record producer is not an automatic notability freebie for bands in and of itself, and neither is composing music for a podcast -- and the "charting" claims here are all tied to WP:BADCHARTS rather than notability-conferring charts: notability because charting requires IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard, not individual radio station charts or "FMQB Submodern". And of the ten footnotes, five are blogs that are not support for notability, and three more are the bad charts -- and of the two that are actually real media outlets, one just gives them a 33-word blurb in a "songs you need to hear" listicle on CBC Hamilton (which is a local news bureau in a single city, and not the same thing as the national news division of the CBC for the purposes of claiming "nationalized" coverage) and the other is a short album review in a local-interest magazine in their hometown, which means that they don't represent enough substance or range or volume of media coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1 in lieu of having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria. There's also a direct WP:COI here, as the article was recreated by a WP:SPA whose username closely corresponds to the name of one of the band members. Nothing here is a stronger notability claim than the band had the first time, the quality of the sourcing has not improved, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which bands are entitled to place themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the references point to a veneer of notability. Nothing substantial musically has been achieved per requirements of WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 22:19, 25 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 this one for the time being. Perhaps it can be improved. Take a look at improvement and other options before we renominate. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porcine adenovirus[edit]

Porcine adenovirus (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)

Taxon was split in 1981. Article unsourced except a link to another wiki. The taxon is a grade and not a clade. There is no clear notability as a historical taxon either. --Nessie (📥) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned all over the web, in books, and in scholarly journals. Instead of deleting the article, please contact and correct the scientists first, then redirect this article to the correct taxonomy. Grade/clade? Are you going after the other grades? That doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia rule, "no grades allowed."

Added a reference, took less time than your AFD post. --73.189.86.70 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it" is not an it, it's a they. They are multiple viruses, related, but not one solid group. If we want to use the current taxonomy, we create Porcine mastadenovirus A, Porcine mastadenovirus B, and possibly Porcine mastadenovirus C; and the best Porcine adenovirus can hope for is a disambiguation page. This is really a case of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. --Nessie (📥) 14:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're now saying they do belong in Wikipedia, which detracts from your AFD. Just not in this form? Fix it. There's no shame in leaving an error in the edit history. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:4E (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s like saying I want to keep an article called red flowers because i think Hibiscus and Rose should stay. --Nessie (📥) 19:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Meanwhile, back to this article. It is sourced, it's a notable topic. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:16 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Nessie (📥) 20:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some form. Could be a disambiguation page if articles on the species are written, or could be a redirect to Adenoviridae#Animals. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in some form. I fail to see how readers are served by turning this into a redlink. I'd oppose a redirect to Adenoviridae; the material in Adenoviridae on non-human viruses is very poor. No reason this should not talk about adenoviruses of pigs in general; we have lots of examples of human viruses that do this. Or if subarticles are created, it could become a disambiguation. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 25 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. If someone wants to draftify it, just ask on my talk page. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oduma Essan[edit]

Oduma Essan (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 article for a non notable actor, singer, & filmmaker who falls short of WP:NACTOR, WP:SINGER & WP:ANYBIO as he has not won any notable award. Subject also lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify WP:TOOSOON apply here, there are a couple of coverage on the subject but WP:NOTJUSTYET Delibolt (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I'm also ok with Draftify – I was unable to find any sources to establish GNG. Looks like it is indeed, too soon. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject of this article doesn't meet any criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked the sources for citations and they are very promotional, clearly not the sources for encyclopedia.--Chartwind (talk) 00:00, 25 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. Thanks for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Thomas[edit]

Joanna Thomas (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 decent references. Lots of links to promotional material. Rathfelder (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page content seem too personally detailed hence Possible WP:COI plus Nine references were from the subjects website, one from facebook hence fails WP:GOODREFS Delibolt (talk) 19:24, 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 delete and redirect to Power Sportz. As the founder of Power Sportz her name is a likely search term so I am redirecting after deletion and will be protecting the redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanthi D Suresh[edit]

Kanthi D Suresh (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 sports journalist, with no claim to notability at all. Current sources are all interviews by her or with her and I can't find anything that establishes notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The article was previously deleted under Kanthi D. Suresh, Kanthi D Suresh (journalist) and Kanthi Suresh so, delete and salt. GSS ^💬 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes GNG. She founded Power Sportz, which is the ESPN of India. She also serves as the station's editor-in-chief. Sources include:

• "Sporting a never-say-die attitude!" from The Hans India
• "Kanthi D. Suresh is the first woman in India to head a 24x7 sports channel" from Mint
• "City girl extends the frontiers of sports broadcasting" from The Hindu
• "Jayalalithaa’s Niece, Kanthi D Suresh’s Foray Into Politics" from Chandigarh Metro (a reliable source that is a weekly in Chandigarh)
• "Indian sports media still challenging for women: Kanthi Suresh" from Indo-Asian News Service (not a press release)
• "The Mindset of Corporates need to change; Kanthi D Suresh, Editor-in-Chief, Power Sportz" from The Pioneer
• "Do women with high level of testosterone have advantage over other female athletes?" from the Deccan Chronicle
• "The biggest difference on a digital platform is clock-time viewing, says Kanthi D Suresh, Editor-in-Chief, Power Sportz" from Silicon India (a reliable source magazine)

Missvain (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and interviews and are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject. Pinging @Velella, Dom Kaos, Johnpacklambert, and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: from the previous nomination. GSS ^💬 02:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no better evidence of notability since the last time we went through an AfD on this topic. I am unsure why it could not have been speedily deleted as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD. Still not notable and probably paid for editing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She might have become a well known personality in India since becoming the first woman in India to head a 24x7 sports channel. However compared to fellow sports journalist Mayanti Langer she has not received much attention from the media and misses out on WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing here to warrant a standalone article. Cant see any real in-depth coverage. A worrying sign is the repeated recreation of the page, cant help but think that there is a concerted effort to promote the subject of this article. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the refs provided above tend too much towards interviews or passing name checks and do not constitute the indepth coverage we need to actually justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too much of the coverage surrounding the subject is based on WP:PRIMARY information (see the Hindu reference, where it looks like over half of the text of the article is quoting Suresh), and that that isn't lacks the depth required to establish the subject as meeting WP:BIO. Couple that with the outcome of the previous AfD, and this is a delete vote from me. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: she's no more notable than she was two years ago. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt: Whatever sources I could find are either interviews, or paid/PR stuff trying to publicise the channel and/or subject trying establish her own image. There is no genuine significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. WP:BASIC states: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Like I said previously, there are lots of interviews, and like SamHolt6 said above - "too much of the coverage surrounding the subject is based on WP:PRIMARY information [...]". In short, the subject fails general notability criteria. Requesting to salt all the titles mentioned in the nomination as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT the titles this article was previously created under. Doesn't pass GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 27 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 early given the comments below. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Street Film Awards[edit]

Movie Street Film Awards (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)

second AFD in 3 days is a new record. Non-notable award by a non-notable group. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete(as nominator of prior AfD). I see nothing establishing how these awards are notable. It's just a group of people on Facebook who give out awards. Anyone can give out an award(I could start the "331dot movie awards")- but that doesn't make it notable. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article repeatedly created by a new editor. The present instance is supported by basic reports of the event, which I don't see as demonstrating the duration, depth and lasting effect provisions for WP:EVENT notability, nor are my searches finding better. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete an award awarded by facebook group can be notable as long as it passes general notability criteria or notability criteria for events. But in this case, the subject fails both. It doesn't have enough significant coverage. For now, it is just another award that exists. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:00, 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 delete. Deleting per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wormspawn[edit]

Wormspawn (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 fails WP:JUSTPLOT, as it includes no real-world context, and WP:GNG, as it doesn't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a monster manual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Minor fictional creature with no reliable, secondary sources that discuss it in any depth. Complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of D&D and this is not the monster manual. Just a thought - could we wait until a couple of these are confirmed and the speedy delete the rest? Once we establish that these articles are non notable, WP:SNOW presumably applies. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dozens of these have already been deleted over the past year, and yet even PRODs are still contested for them. So, as much time as it would save, I honestly doubt that idea would pan out. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks. sigh. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and no particular reason to retain this info. TTN (talk) 12:07, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Yeti (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

Fictional monster which fails WP:GNG, as it isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable D&D version of a "real" creature from folklore. There are no reliable, secondary sources that discuss this particular variant of the creature in any way that would justify an independent article. As it completely fails the WP:GNG, neither keeping nor merging it anywhere would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable gamecruft creature, fails WP:GNG and nothing to merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks real world information necessary to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and as such fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 30 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 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu (disambiguation)[edit]

Urdu (disambiguation) (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 dab page is not necessary: the only ambiguous entry other than the primary topic is Urdu (band), a redirect about an early side project briefly mentioned at Robert Rich (musician), which I don't believe to be significant enough to warrant including into our navigational system. There's only one other helpful entry, Ordu (disambiguation), which can be linked from a "Not to be confused with" hatnote at the main article. The dab page has had more entries in the past (e.g. at the time of creation) but they have all been partial title matches for subtopics of the main article, and hence not ambiguous with "Urdu".

Personally, I would have been happy to leave this dab page as it is, to be there in case an actually ambiguous article gets created one day, but it's been the target of a lot of disruptive editing (by socks) over the last couple of months, which makes it somewhat expensive to have around. Pinging Paine Ellsworth (the creator), and Glades12, who endorsed an earlier WP:PROD. – Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator and WP:Disambiguation#Primary topic with only one other topic, although I'm not certain whether a hatnote for the band is appropriate. (Slightly irrelevant, but thanks for the nomination. I was planning to file one myself, but was a bit too busy.) Glades12 (talk) 15:41, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flexy Da Don[edit]

Flexy Da Don (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)

Subject of article is a non notable musical artist that falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Two brief mentions on GhanaWeb, both which are already cited. I couldn't find anything else to help establish notability. Missvain (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable musician who doesn't meet any criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Neither him or his music have been discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist. Sources are of poor quality--Chartwind (talk) 00:11, 25 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 21:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ylaruam[edit]

Ylaruam (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 article fails WP:JUSTPLOT, as it contains no real-world context, and WP:GNG, as no non-primary sources seem to discuss it. Not a very active user (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Mystara. Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Mystara per Necrothesp. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable fictional location, with only very brief, in-universe plot information. The only sources being used are primary, and coverage outside of that is next to non-existent. Un-sourced material is not needed for preservation or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article fails GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources, with information described from an in-universe perspective. There is no information worth merging anywhere, and the proposed redirect target fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minute, trivial in-universe content not worthy of its own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 27 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. Nobody contests Missvain's sources. Sandstein 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lizbeth Rodríguez[edit]

Lizbeth Rodríguez (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 who falls short of WP:NACTOR & generally does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets general notability guidelines. She has been profiled in major Spanish language media. Significant cover includes

• "Lizbeth Rodriguez, la chica Badabun que "desnuda" infieles" from El Universal (in article)
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez presenta a su hijo ante las cámaras" from Milenio (in article)
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez, de ventas por catálogo a 'Exponiendo infieles'" from Milenio (in article)
• "¿Quién es Lizbeth Rodríguez? Fotos de Instagram, historia y edad de la 'Chica Badabun' de "Exponiendo infieles"" from El Comerico (in article)
• "Lizbeth Rodriguez hablara en Facebook sobre casos de abuso" from El Universal
• "Fotos Lizbeth Rodríguez sin ropa interior se convierte en una atrevida princesa" from Show! which is El Debate's entertainment magazine

Passing mentions and when she is cited as a subject matter expert that establishes WP:BASIC

• "La confesión que Lizbeth Rodríguez le hizo a su ex pareja, Tavo Betancourt" from Infobae
• "https://www.elimparcial.com/espectaculos/Tremendo-Lizbeth-Rodriguez-revela-que-ya-no-va-a-exponer-infieles-20200122-0164.html" from El Imparcial
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez, la ex "chica Badabun”, confesó que su papá abusaba de ella" from Infobae
• "Qué es Badabun, el canal mexicano que ha desbancado a ElRubius en YouTube" from El País (in article)
• "Por que a exposição pública de infiéis causa obsessão em tanta gente" fro El País (in article)
• "Youtuber Lizbeth Rodríguez hace lo impensable en nuevo video tras salida de Badabun" from El Diario La Prensa
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez, youtuber de Badabun, paga fuerte deuda a Coppel" from Milenio
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez de Badabun confiesa lo que Tavo Betancourt le pidió" from Chispa, El Debate's lifestyle website
• "Lizbeth Rodríguez de Badabun y la indirecta a Tavo Betancourt" from Chispa

There are so many articles I could go on and on! Missvain (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources should be added to the page--Chartwind (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Given her huge following of fans, I believe she passes WP:GNG and the second criterion of WP:NACTOR. And I agree with Chartwind that more of the sources provided here should be added to the article. (I have also edited the article's text to fix pronouns and sentence structure, as the article seemed to have been written by someone for whom English isn't their mother tongue.) Dflaw4 (talk) 13:57, 27 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. As always, disregarding pure votes that make no argument by BOZ and "per BOZ". Sandstein 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons dwarf deities[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons dwarf deities (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 is a containment list for extremely trivial characters, but the list itself is too trivial to exist. It fails to establish its own notability as a grouping, and these characters are not important enough to justify an article split. There is no worth upmerging this to another list. The topic of D&D deities is worth talking about in the main setting articles of the various D&D settings, but there is no current justification that a massive list of all deities is needed to understand the franchise. TTN (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not notable beyond that scope. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or selectively merge to Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Description. BOZ (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- since this is sourced entirely to primary sources, it fails WP:LISTN. As for merging, the proposed target is already choc-a-bloc full of badly sourced fancruft and would only be worsened by including any more. Reyk _YO! 13:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like all of the other race-specific deity lists, none of the individual entries are notable, and there are no non-primary sources discussing them as a group that would allow them to pass WP:LISTN. Merging is not necessary for non-notable, non-reliably sourced material. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure gamecruft, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:LISTN and WP:GAMEGUIDE. None of the sources are independent. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons orc deities[edit]

List of Dungeons & Dragons orc deities (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 is a containment list for extremely trivial characters, but the list itself is too trivial to exist. It fails to establish its own notability as a grouping, and these characters are not important enough to justify an article split. There is no worth upmerging this to another list. The topic of D&D deities is worth talking about in the main setting articles of the various D&D settings, but there is no current justification that a massive list of all deities is needed to understand the franchise. TTN (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this article fails WP:LISTN, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. Since none of the listed characters have articles, it has no navigational purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not notable beyond that scope. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or selectively merge to Orc (Dungeons & Dragons)#Description. BOZ (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree that this fails WP:LISTN, and it is clear that the proposed merge target (which is already very bad) would not be improved by including any of this excessive fancruft. Reyk _YO! 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like all of the other race-specific deity lists, none of the individual entries are notable, and there are no non-primary sources discussing them as a group that would allow them to pass WP:LISTN. Merging is not necessary for non-notable, non-reliably sourced material. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure gamecruft, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:04, 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 delete. Consensus that GNG/NAUTHOR were not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Alexander McCracken[edit]

Grant Alexander McCracken (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:AUTHOR N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I think the page should stay. Other well-known members of Australia's and Melbourne's poetry scene also have entries on Wikipedia. Grant Alexander McCracken was a well-known personality in Melbourne, Australia, and I feel that his page will be a useful source for anyone looking him up. I will provide credible sources and hopefully others will too. He was a published writer, a exhibited painter and there are many article from reputable sources written about him, which I hope to include in the entry at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand why Authorship was questioned, but I can guarantee the entry meets the below criteria:
  WP:AUTHOR"
  WP:POET
  Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
  The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - yes
  The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - yes
  The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - yes
  The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Emuwren: I really can't see how he passes any of these, espesically without reasoning. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will add more sources and you will see what I mean, I am sorry that creating this Wikipedia entry has angered you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Emuwren: This hasn't angered me. Remeber to keep to the subject, rather than commenting on other editors (See HELP:AFD). You can add more sources to favour the article; you have the entire week to sort it out. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for providing me with the right way to sign posts in talk pages. If his entry doesn't meet the standards for an entry, which I understand, then other pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelton_Lea should also be considered for deletion for not meeting the same standards. I will add more sources within the week, thank you for your patience. Emuwren (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Emuwren: Also, It doesn't look like this was passed through by WP:AFC, so it may be better to move to a draftspace rather than outright delete. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 12:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is sad that the subject passed away recently. Unfortunately there is very little to be found about the subject. The subject has published one book, and gets a few mentions. For a "character" in Melbourne, I would have thought there would have been at least one mention in the The Age, but it seems there is nothing to be found for certainly the last several years. Unless the article author can produce several good sources, I cannot see how the subject can come anywhere near GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was able to find a few mentions of McCracken in The Age through a Newspapers.com search ([10][11]), but no significant coverage—just listings for performances at local Melbourne venues. McCracken's one published poetry collection is not widely held by libraries (see WorldCat), and I couldn't find any reviews of it. Basically, I'm can't find any evidence that WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG are met. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AUTHOR, WP:MILL, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Literally millions of people have had their poetry published and their artwork exhibited. Unless it attracts attention in good sources, it's not notable. The obit appears to be a paid notice. May he rest in peace. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 29 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. Notability not established Nosebagbear (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Murawski[edit]

Marcin Murawski (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)

Self-promotion (see edit summaries from both registered accounts and IPs) with five sources--consisting of the subject's own bio (in two cases, a duplicate of the text here) and a couple of bare mentions--clustered together at the end of a paragraph I wound up deleting before deciding to go the AFD route. A search online finds no substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough to pass GNG let alone any music specific criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promotion article, not enough notability established.--Darwinek (talk) 22:01, 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 delete. Consensus that there aren't sufficient sources that meet all of Sig Cov/reliable/independent to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Soni[edit]

Avani Soni (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 is a procedural nomination from 2402:8100:3982:582b:7fb:cb0e:d37c:7e82 (talk · contribs). The rationale seems to be "not notable". I am neutral Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. Yet to establish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3982:582B:7FB:CB0E:D37C:7E82 (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]