Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 September	27 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrapnel (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE, not notable, no plausible redirect. FOARP (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FOARP - basically sums up my conclusions as well. Not notable outside of its fictional universe. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Three of the four incarnations are this. ミラ P 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Animated characters#Decepticons. RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnut (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Animated characters#Decepticons which already covers this character FOARP (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FOARP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion after two relists and the first AFD closed as Keep, so a soft delete seems inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Novoselova

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

The article’s first deletion nomination was clearly poorly done, yet the notability issue still stands (take all the ridiculous puff and promotion out and you will see it). Meanwhile, the fallacious belief that the defunct, obsolete New York Magazine model directory doesn’t. None of these citations do. The Fashion Spot forums?! Unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her work is featured in the book The Magic of Fashion: Ritual, Commodity, Glamour by Brian Moeran, Routledge, 2016 (see here on google books); Harper's Bazaar Fabulous at Every Age: Your Quick & Easy Guide to Fashion By Nandini D'Souza, Jenny Barnett, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2009 (see here in Google Books). Not sure if this lends any notability beyond what's in the article.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given comment here I can't find my way to close as soft delete, but a nomination only is not a consensus to delete. Relisting in hopes that broader involvement might more firmly establish consensus (or no consensus).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raza de Traidores

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Willbb234.Andrew Base (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Thomas

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

Likely failing notability. Lacking independent sources to verify notability. Most coverage appears to be primary, such as profiles published by institutions he is connected with (e.g. university or NGO profiles), contributor profiles for various newspapers or blogs. The Books appear to be publications by his place of work (such as World Bank reviews) where he was a contributing author for section(s) as part of his role. Divisional organisational leadership roles are not inherently notable. There is a lack of coverage about Thomas. His output seems largely verifiable in primary sources, but that does not pass the threshold test for NAUTHOR, NPROF or GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not the primary subject of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter B. Sunderland

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter B. Sunderland

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

The professor in this category doesn't fit the requirements for Wikipedia's professor test. At best, the person has 2000 citations and has nominal achievements that other professors in the community has had in the past (See: Dr. Chung K Law, Dr. Jay Gore, Dr. Gerry Faeth, DMatthias Ihme, Dr. Kenneth Yu (from the same school has more citations). Awards are nominal and not anywhere close to the aforementioned research scientists in the field. For these reasons, I would like to have Peter B. Sunderland's page removed. LumosFlame (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being "Keystone Professor" is not an endowed professorship of the type that passes WP:PROF#C5; it is merely a perk given to those faculty willing to teach intro courses [1]. But I think his citation record, with three papers into the triple digits on Google Scholar [2], is above threshold for #C1. The nomination argument is based on WP:WAX and is not good; we should be evaluating the subject on his own merits, not arguing on the basis of missing articles for more-notable people. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Above threshold for WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. Wm335td (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:PROF#C1.I agree with user David Eppstein on the fact that the absence of other professors' wiki pages isn't a valid reason to remove this one. However, I disagree with the threshold for WP:PROF#C1 as mentioned by User David Eppstien. This metric of only over 100 citations, as mentioned by you, is satisfied by a myriad number of professors in the field of combustion, esp. fire protection. The significance of the highly cited work lies in the co-author GM Faeth, whose articles are sought after. Combining the fact that Wikipedia pages give credible information about the professor and having merely triple digit citations doesn't provide the reader with any salient talking points about having this page. Pages like Google Scholar are used for that purpose, not a Wikipedia page. Hence I propose to have this page removed at the earlierst. LumosFlame (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the "delete" because the nomination already counts as your !vote. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the article has seen considerable improvement it over the course of this AfD there remains no consensus that the sourcing demonstrates notability after considerable discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Florida Council

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a directory, and all this is is a substitute for the group's website. There are no secondary sources, nor should we expect any. Let's be clear: there is no inherent notability for such organizational units, and subjects need to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to admit, but it looks all the sources we used were just from the group's website. It doesn't even look like they were any passing references to it even in local media. I'd recommend deleting this or redirecting it to a main Boy Scouts page if there is one that covers BSA regional councils at a high level (i haven't checked yet). Michepman (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol wold be to merge it to: Scouting_in_Florida#South_Florida_Council. However, I just removed all the redundant citations to the council's own website. --evrik ^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michepman, I appreciate your note. It's just very unlikely that any of the councils at this level will pass the GNG. As for merging--there are no secondary sources that cover the council as such; recently added source only address one person and the camps, and that does not help the notability of the council. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that it is "IMHO." Clearly, the number of references, the size of the article, it's subpages and the links to the article establish it's notability. --evrik ^(talk) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could write ten-thousand words of flowery prose about the liechtenstein rose society, populate it with references to a website run by same, and make a nice little walled garden full of sub societies, important members, and annual events, and it wouldn't change that I literally just made the group up. Article quality is orthogonal to article includeability. No matter how good an article, it should not be kept if it is about a non-notable subject. Any article whose subject we can determine whose subject is notable should be kept (unless it is a copyvio or just so cluttered with cruft as to deserve WP:TNT).Rockphed (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I looked at World Federation of Rose Societies, and there is no Liechtenstein Rose Society. It would have been funny had there been one. ;-) --evrik ^(talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not have articles that are sourced only to an organization's own web page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now ten different sources, and only one of them are from the organization. --evrik ^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article can be salvaged. More sources can be found. --evrik ^(talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope they're better sources than this Angelfire website. The Wilma and Irma material isn't about the council. It is possible that this, which was supposed to be a link to "Jose Dante Parra Herrera (1997-09-14). "Thomas Tatham, 86, longtime Boy Scouting Booster". Miami Herald." contains a lengthy in-depth discussion of the council--no, that's not possible. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~The angelfire site is where a copy of the published book is available online.~~ The findagrave reference has the text of the Hearld article listed on it, if you don't want to pay to read it. So, that is four of the twelve. Want to try and take down the other eight? --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's a site where you can order one. You didn't give a page number, by the way. So, at best, you will have verified, maybe, that the council number is 84? Bravo. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I stand corrected. I’ll see if I can find the correct link. Until then, this link offers some of the same data : http://thecouncilguide.com --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES --110.165.185.203 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has been recently updated and is well sourced. This is a speedy keep. --sweet68camaro 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone is allowed their opinion. Maybe sweet68camaro thinks you haven't read the article. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe sweetcamaro needs to read WP:AGF, then. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't seem fair. Sweet68camaro did not say or imply that you didn't read the article; they just stated their opinion and there was no assumption of bad faith. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am assuming that the sources added by evrik are the best the internet has to offer. They are, to be blunt, horrible. I think the sources might establish notability for the scout camp run by the South Florida Council, but everything about the South Florida Council is either passing mention or WP:routine.Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are these as well, I just havern't had time to go through them all:

- ‎O'MATZ, MEGAN (2001-12-18). "GAY BAN GARNERS SCOUTS $200,000". Sun Sentinel.
- DOZIER, MARIAN (2001-01-27). "JCCS BREAK RANKS WITH BAN ON BOY SCOUTS". Sun Sentinel.
- Sanchez, Danny (2005-07-26). "SCOUTING OPTIONS". Sun Sentinel.
- O'MATZ, MEGAN (2000-09-17). "SCOUTS FEAR CUTS TO RUN DEEPER". Sun Sentinel.
- O'MATZ, MEGAN (2000-09-12). "TAX FUNDS FOR SCOUTS PULLS EMOTIONS". Sun Sentinel.
- Fishman, Scott (2009-04-05). "Scouts break ground on site". Sun Sentinel.
- Mayo, Michael (2010-07-24). "South Florida parents sue after Boy Scout hiking death". Sun Sentinel.

--evrik ^(talk) 15:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this page needs to be pruned to remove items not directly related to the operation or background of the Council, folks need to keep in mind that many local BSA Councils like this one has limited, trained or coached people to maintain and observe their site. Instead of deleting the site, recommend that people contact the Council and ask them to provide more information than what is found by viewing the website. Stray comments from people in opposition of the BSA or their policies should be removed to maintain the neutrality of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settummanque (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief analysis of sources

"A press release". 13 August 2018. on the Scouting website about the appointment of a person to the Council.
"A report on the Council". from GuideStar, which publishes numbers on NGOs (this is a website that reports primary information).
"Order your book on patches here".--that's all this can do.
"Well this link goes nowhere and should be removed". but ostensibly this is an obit on a member--no reason at all to believe it offers proper information that establishes notability.
"Here is another BSA web page"., this one the real directory.
"An obit on a person". on the website of the Rotary Club, which offers "He helped finance the rebuilding of the Boy Scout Camp in the Florida Keys"--and that is all it is.
"Boy Scout camp after Irma". (to state the obvious: this isn't about the Council).
"God only knows what this is". --it's not a secondary source, it doesn't discuss the Council. "Camp Everglades is in the Pine Rocklands of Everglades National Park" is not contended, and it is irrelevant.
"Wilma Ravages Boy Scout Camp"--a newspaper article about a camp after a storm; it has 413 words, according to the Miami Herald, and I doubt that much of that is devoted to the Council.
"Another camp after a storm". 25 June 2012. ; if we're generous we can see content about the Council: "Since then, the South Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, have cleared away fallen Australian Pines and ripped out a decades-old water system." If we are really generous.
"Another camp after a storm". New York Daily News., and if we're generous, "It is expected to reopen by January, according to Jeff Hunt, executive director of the South Florida Council of Boys Scouts of America."
"What this is, is unclear". Archived from the original on 2012-03-10., but a web page archived from the O-Shot-Caw Lodge is not an independent secondary source.

In other words: mentions in secondary sources about the Council: two. Discussion of the actual Council in secondary sources: zero. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Drmies - I think that this article may have inadvertently fallen victim to reference bombing as part of some users' good faith attempts at repairing it. Of the links provided, most don't really mention the subject at all. The few who do fall squarely into the examples provided at WP:REFBOMB -- (1) citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree and (2) citations which don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof. For example, a statement of where the person was born might be "referenced" to a source which verifies that the named town exists, but completely fails to support the claim that the person was actually born there..

I respect the work that editors have put into this article, and I think there's some value in folding some of the information into the main page referenced above by user:evrik. I hate deleting articles, especially ones that contain a lot of useful information, but even with the expanded sourcing I just can't see this as passing the GNG. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Drmies - Thank you for the analysis. That was a fair amount of work. Looking at what you have posted I have two thoughts, first many of these citations are about specific facts and not on the broader council. Second, the sheer number of mentions of the council show its notability. --evrik ^(talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Michepman - WP:REFBOMB? Hardly. First, refbomb is not policy, it is an essay. Second, I stripped most of the cruft from the page, and then started to find references relating to each of the different sections. The subject is notable. Can you imagine where the article would be now if user:DrMies had spent the same effort improving the article as trying to get it deleted? --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking things over, I found 3 sources that are more than name checks, though they do not look like they are very much more.

Johnson, Scott F.; Redfield, Sarah E. (2015). Education Law: A Problem-Based Approach. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167.
Johnson, Scott F.; Redfield, Sarah E. (2015). Education Law: A Problem-Based Approach. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167.
Dyck Price (November–December 1993). The Way it Was. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Sorry for the incredibly convoluted links. Two are to a scouting magazine, and the third is to an analysis of scouting's response to homosexuality. Rockphed (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking at them, it appears one is listed twice. --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the last cite Pryce, Dick (March–April 1993). The Day Andrew Came to Town. Scouting. pp. 36–37, 62–63. Retrieved 20 September 2019.

As I said, I don't think they are much more than passing mentions. Rockphed (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that WP:REFBOMB is a policy or that the article should be deleted for that reason. My point, as I said earlier, is that the article’s sources are mostly about other stuff that are only incidentally related to South Florida Council. No one is disputing that the Council exists, or that it does good work in the community. But the sourcing present in the article and the sources linked in this page are (for the most part) not **about** the South Florida Council. They mention it in the context of other topics — a natural disaster in south Florida, or a story about the Boy Scouts in general, etc. they are useful for corroborating / verifying information about the Council, and again I commend the work spent here, but they don’t establish that it is notable.

One thing that might be helpful is if you described why the article passes the General Notability Guideline. The length of the article and the number of sources included are not relevant to the analysis. I’ve gone through it, and the WP:Notability (organizations and companies myself and tried to make a case that it is notable but I haven’t been able to justify it with the information I’ve found so far. If you can do that, then I will support keeping the article. Michepman (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? I think all the articles above show a lot of coverage. The sources are reliable. The sources are independent of the council. Many of the sources are primary, but may also be classed as secondary. A 100 year old non-profit that has had a significant impact on a large region of a state, surely qualifies as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 13:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. No, primary sources may NOT be classed as secondary. That the non-profit has had an impact should be measurable. And no, this is not a lot of coverage. Moreover, NONE of the sources discuss the organization. If you don't understand the difference between cover and discuss--well, I think I said this before and I am tired of repeating myself: these are very basic concepts and your refusal to accept them means I'm wasting my time. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing the point. There is some subjectiveness in what is primary and what is secondary. I do think that the sources discuss the subject, especially the ones listed above not integrated into the article. I agree that this is a waste of time. We should close the discussion, keep the article and work to improve it. --evrik ^(talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work and a {{refimprove}} tag is warranted, but not outright deletion. With all due respect to my esteemed fellow admin user:Drmies, Wikipedia custom needs to be taken into consideration, too. The Scouting WikiProject has had a long-standing interest in improving Council articles. Each Council is its own 501c(3) non-profit corporate entity, having a board of directors, budget, and camp properties. Typically, a council spans many counties and has several thousand members. The South Florida Council has 40,000 members serving a region having a population of almost 5 million, for example.

Examining some of the refs cited here by evrik (but not yet integrated into the article) since the AfD was first listed do support GNG. Whilst individually the refs are not highly persuasive, taken in the aggregate the article barely meets GNG. The camps owned and operated by a council are part of the council's article, rather than having separate standalone articles. News media coverage of Hurricane Irma's destruction of the South Florida Council's camp on Scout Key is therefore specifically relevant to this article and indeed demonstrates the Council's notability.

Likewise, repeated news media mention in reliable sources about the South Florida Council, as it relates to news developments and controversies, also contribute to notability. That these reliable sources consider the Council Executive's statements worthy enough to quote as newsworthy, further demonstrates that keeping this article best serves Wikipedia's value to the reader. JGHowes ^talk 17:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JGHowes, you are suggesting a kind of inherent notability for such organizational entities. I still do not see why a council gets that privilege. Is there a secondary sources that explains when and how if was founded? Who the most important people were on the board or in the organization? What its financials are? What all things it operates, and why, and how? These are the things we expect secondary sources to deliver in order for an organizational entity to pass the GNG--except for secondary schools. Councils are not like secondary schools. These articles you point at, not a single one of them says anything substantial about the council. One or two of them point at grants, requested or received. One has a few membership numbers. That's it. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies you haven't made your case. The facts aren't with you. Why don't you work on revamping the article instead of spending so much time trying to refute what others have said. --evrik ^(talk)

Drmies I refute this as you simply bringing up the same arguments again and again. --evrik ^(talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to write. Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a fresh look at the revised article, which now has much less reliance on self-pub and OR than before the AfD prompted the rewrite and search for RS refs to meet GNG. Some have now been incorporated into the article, especially as concerns the hurricane recovery at this Council's camps and are thus unquestionably relevant. Interestingly enough, I did contact the Council to see if they had old newspaper clippings in their archives from the 1910s-1930s regarding the Council's founding and merger history, but all those records were lost when Wilma destroyed the building housing the archives. JGHowes ^talk 16:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last comment. Based on my reading the concerns about the sourcing being too thin have not been adequately addressed - WP:SIGCOV demands that the sources provided have some substance so that notability can be established, and Drmies's last point on this has not been refuted - but it is possible (per JGHowes) the last edits did find such sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Drmies had been consistently refuted. --evrik ^(talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Insofar as Drmies has been refuted it is only because you are not engaging his points. His analysis of the sources provided, which largely matches my analysis, is that they are all trivial mentions in articles that are mostly about other things. I found several articles from local papers in Florida that were simply minutes of scout council meetings. They do no more to establish notability than do the other sources we have dug up. Rockphed (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have engaged all the point. However, since Drmies has refused to acknowledge that we have made any progress. it's hard to advance the discussion. The council is notable the citations are good, the page should not be deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So, here are the new sources that have been added in the last 2 days.

Fishman, Scott (April 5, 2009). "Scouts break ground on site". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
"Boy Scouts of America, South Florida Council". Charity Navigator. 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
‎Bethel, Rodman J. (1987). Flagler's Folly: The Railroad That Went to Sea and Was Blown Away. Slumbering Giant. p. 76. ISBN 0961470224.
Walker, Christine (September 21, 1997). "Thomas L. Tatham, Boy Scout Leader". Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
Nikki Waller (2005-11-27). "Wilma Ravages Boy Scout Camp". Miami Herald. p. 1.

Of the three that are available on the internet, I am concerned about the independence of Charity Navigator's page. The other two are trivial mentions. Based on what the book is supporting, I think it is also a trivial mention. The last one looks like one of the sources already discussed. I saw a mention that this used to be the "Dade County Council", but searching for that in newspaper archives gets only routine, WP:MILL coverage. I applaud JGHowes and Evrik for their research, but, ultimately, I don't think we have found any sources that actually show notability. Rockphed (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some IP editor who only comments on deletion debates has chosen to comment here. I may ask for a sockpuppet check. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- user:evrik, two things. a. I asked you to stop pinging me; you should respect that. b. Do not EVER remove an IP's comment for such specious reasons. You can ask for a check, but it will be denied immediately. If you're wondering how I can say this with such certainly, it's because I am a CheckUser and we don't honor requests for IP checks, esp. not if there is no evidence. (Like, seriously--who do you think this person is, and based on what evidence? Without that, it will always be denied, even if it's an account and not an IP.) Also, IPs are people too.
  Well, now that I am here, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. Rockphed, thank you also. Yes, I do believe my comments have not been properly addressed. Having said that, I have to say, User:JGHowes, holy moly, you did a fine, fine job. I still do not think (having just looked over the new version and some of the new sources) that this council passes the GNG, but if it gets through this AfD it will be because of your work, and I appreciate it. If you ever fly down to MGM or Maxwell, ping me and I'll buy you a cup of coffee or an ice cream. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I haven't pinged you since you asked me not to. FYI I did reference the removal. I just went and stripped all of the pinging templates out of the discussion. My reason for removing the comments are found here. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are some other refs added in the last couple of days, besides those enumerated above by Rockphed:

‎"City of Miami, Boy Scouts, USCG and Auxiliary Attain Bicentennial Goal". Navigator magazine. U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. June 1976. p. 35. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
"Hurricane Andrew". Scouting magazine. March–April 1993. pp. 37 and 63. Retrieved September 25, 2019. (arguably, since it's a magazine published by the National headquarters in Texas, "independent" may be a stretch)
Diaz, Madeline (May 14, 2003). "Charity to stop funding Boy Scouts". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
Piccardo, Rebeca (November 13, 2014). "Cub Scout gets a souped-up ride to school by NASCAR driver". Miami Herald. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
‎Adams, Carter; Self, Aaron (November 28, 2017). "Sawyer After Irma". The Burr Magazine. Retrieved September 24, 2019.

These new refs are, for the most part, independent secondary sources which, taken together, do respond to Drmies' concerns regarding what GNG rightly expects of an org's article, e.g., its most important leaders (and corporate sponsors, in the case of a non-profit), its budget, and especially what the org operates (i.e., the camps, in this instance). This is not to claim inherent notability or IAR applies, but rather that there has been more than mere passing mention that the news media has deemed newsworthy in a major metropolitan area, thereby meeting the notability requirements of GNG.

Drmies, I was at Gunter AFB as an ROTC cadet marching and doing PT under a blazing hot July sun, so I'll take you up on that kind offer anytime but summer!

JGHowes ^talk 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm really impressed by the additional sourcing on this. I still think it's very debatable that this organization is notable per the strict letter of the GNG (which admittedly is frustratingly vague) but I do think that, given the track record of specific citations to it over a long period of time over multiple independent resources, that it probably does merit enough verifiable independent coverage to meet the specific notability guidelines for the organizations.

As noted above, a lot -- nearly all, actually -- of the sources presented actually are about other topics (often articles that are really about the Boy Scouts and not specifically about the Council) but I think that there's enough meat on the bone to support the article. This is definitely a tough one though and I can still see both sides. Michepman (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that at this point, the discussion has bent towards, keep, however, if whomever decides to close this goes the other way, I'm going to suggest that the content is merged and a redirect is left in place of this page. Merge it to: Scouting in Florida#South Florida Council. --evrik ^(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comment I've added more to the history section for the 1910s-1930s, with old newspaper clippings cited from Library of Congress archives. JGHowes ^talk 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I did get a good laugh from the see also for Labor Day as "the holiday the storms attack on". RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Labor Day

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

Unclear scope, no significant sourcing suggesting this particular moniker is common. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a primary topic in my opinion. I never heard anyone say that Dorian is the Labor Day Hurricane. INeedSupport ^:V 02:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title isn't even grammatically correct if we're talking about "Labor Day hurricane". Building off INeedSupport, there isn't really evidence of calling any tropical cyclone as the "Labor Day hurricane" other than the storm in 1935 or a loose connection to Norma in 1970. I disagree with Dorian being on the list because I have not heard anyone call it that (I live in South Florida) and the storm barely impacted the United States on Labor Day anyway. So are we just going to check through a calendar and arbitrarily determine what's a "Labor Day" hurricane?--12george1 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLENTY (currency)

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

This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. It's about a local currency that was issued several years ago in a small United States town in the aftermath of the Great Recession. The only sources I can locate are local news coverage (including from the regional Raleigh, North Carolina TV station WRAL), a brief mention in a USA Today article, and the currency's website. Indy beetle (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacque Jacque Shellacque

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

Obscure Looney Tunes character; article was initially redirected due to notability & sourcing concerns, however the character was also removed from the target article (List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters) for the same reason, so a redirect is confusing and offers no benefit to the reader. If notability and unsourced original research are the issues, I'm inclined to think that we should just delete instead.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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

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

– PC78 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should remain because the character was revived in both The Looney Tunes Show and New Looney Tunes, and thus has modern relevance. James Gordon (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless sources are found. I could maybe see Rocky and Mugsy having some kind of potential, but that's based on absolutely nothing but my initial thought seeing their names. TTN (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all per TTN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per WP:HEY. I found two references which analyze the character in two different ways, one in terms of playing into the evil foreigner with facial hair trope, and another looking at morality tales as told to children (in this case the evils of being a thief). I also found that the character inspired a type of poker/blackjack hybrid game that has been published in a poker game book. This may not be enough for WP:SIGCOV on its own (others should comment), but it would fit nicely into the list article which needs referencing and expansion. If kept, unsourced material should be weeded out. I request that the nominator either close as merge, or re-list so others can have time to look at what I added to the article. @TTN: and @Erpert: please comment again, as the article has changed with added referencing and is no longer completely lacking sources.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now, I would !vote merge Rocky and Mugsy to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per 4meter4 but still delete the rest. The sources in Blacque Jacque Shellacque are either brief mentions about him or don't mention him at all; and as for Count Blood Count, well, aside from being a very, very minor character, the article has no sources and its tone is, frankly, laughable. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um... all of the sources in the article do mention Blacque Jacque Shellacque. I just researched them and added them. I didn't think it was really enough to warrant it's own article either, but it's certainly enough to be included in a list.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than brief mentions? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they offer brief analysis, but are really not that substantial. Enough to warrant a merge to the list, but not necessarily an article. I'm still hoping to dig offline for references. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow an opportunity to evaluate the recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 4meter4. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per the above and the cursory glances done so far, I'd say. Might have some notability, but not standalone notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first recording of the opera in the stereo era, the album is of fundamental importance in the opera's history. See Opera, December 1978, p. 1194 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention that, with citation, on the wiki article about the opera. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced entirely to catalogue entries. No evidence of notability. Guy (help!) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per it's inclusion in the reference work The Rough Guide to Opera by Matthew Boyden, Nick Kimberley, Joe Staines, 2002, page 89, and The American Radio History Archive, and it's 1978 review in Gramaphone. That's enough to establish notability per criteria one of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM#1. Kudos to 4meter4 for finding additional RS coverage in their comment above. Colin M (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews/articles. In addition to the two in Gramophone over the years and Stereo Review (all already cited in the article), there are the two sources found by 4meter4. It was broadcast in its entirety on WXQR [3], and excerpts on other NPR stations. e.g. [4] and on Radio Television Hong Kong [5]. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. As for potential copyvio issues in the "Reviews" section, that can be truncated to simply listing the reviews and re-expanded later. The entire article doesn't need deletion, if the subject is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (actually this looks quite snowy) with plenty of reviews so meets WP:NALBUM. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further coverage, see Terence Cave's Mignon's Afterlives, 2011, p. 109; Peter Gammond's The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Recorded Opera, 1979, p. 202; Clyde T. McCants's American Opera Singers and their Recordings, 2004, p. 362; Matthew Rye's 1001 Classical Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die, 2017, p. 374; Ethan Mordden's A Guide to Opera Recordings, 1987, p. 106; The New Records, Vol. 46, Issue 10, 1978, p. 12; The Penguin Guide to Recorded Music, 2008, p. 1351; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 2001, p. 1402; and Musikrevy, Vol. 34, 1979, p. 47.Niggle1892 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i can see why this afd may have been relisted, with a "delete" from a couple of experienced editors (hi Guy, and Smerus:)), it would be nice if they could revisit this and reconsider?. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one of the "keep" opinions actually discusses the sources. Sandstein 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Men-O-Lan

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

Promotional and non-notable summer camp. All sources found are primary, self published, or a directory. The article is also written by a user with no edits outside of this camp/images; This is an indication of a web-host violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In searching, I found some non-trivial coverage. See here in Google Books: Brenda Phelan (2011). East and West Rockhill Townships. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 57 and 64. The camp was also the main subject of an article in the magazine Mennonite Life, "Camp Men-O-Lan". Mennonite Life. 10–11. Bethel College: 123–124. 1955..4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions are different from sourcing notability. The East and West Rockhill Townships are directory listings of various attractions. The camp exists, but is not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mention in the google books link only shows 4 pictures + a paltry amount of text. From what I can glance of the Mennonite Life reference [6], the camp does not seem to be the main subject of the article (and saying it is seems like a misrepresentation). 110.165.185.203 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found sources as well. It should be better referenced and copyedited. --evrik ^(talk) 17:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are entirely primary, Macaroni kid does not link to any notable text and is a SPS, and CCCA is just a directory. None of the sources are notable and per the WP:GNG, this does not warrant an article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you found sources, share them.2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources added by evrik?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP article should be improved and WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTCLEANUP presupposes the notability of the subject, which is not the case here. You can't fix notability. It's either there, or it isn't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Wm335td --evrik ^(talk) 03:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage to ring the the WP:N bell. It has been asserted above that sources exist. But none listed in this discussion or that I could find in my own search come close to meeting GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sourcing sufficient to meet WP:ORG. Possibly Redirect to General Conference Mennonite Church, if a mention of it is added there. Speaking of which, if someone wants a cleanup project, the latter look to have a ton of detail based mainly on publications which appear connected to the church... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Steiner

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

This person does not seem to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. From a quick googling, most of the hits (besides this article) were him promoting his book. There is also a lack of citations providing any evidence of notability. BeIsKr (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I clicked on the books link, above, and added ~~four~~ five additional references. That is just scratching the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, Steiner is one of dozen most well known mercenaries of the 20th century. There are plentry of references to support his notability. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. One of the best-known 20th century mercenaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he satisfy WP:MILITARY? Assuming he doesn't (and I don't see him matching any of the 8 points there), why would being mentioned for a paragraph or two in a few books satisfy WP:GNG? If he had a chapter devoted to him in a book or two, fine, but the fact that he's mentioned in passing doesn't seem like notability. BeIsKr (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite easily satisfies WP:SOLDIER #4 and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominator BeIsKr, I left you a headsup, where I asked you if you were familiar with your obligations under WP:BEFORE. Your comment, above, very strongly suggests you are not aware of your obligations. Nominators are not supposed to evaluate the notability of topics merely by looking at the references already included in the article. They are supposed to look at ALL the available RS, or a reasonable seletion of the top RS. Your nomination says you did a "quick googling". Well, it was too quick. A more thorough web search will confirm what others here know. Steiner was one of the most active, well-known mercenaries of the 20th Century. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steiner is one of the most well known mercenaries in the 20th century.Andrew Base (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Call for closure.
Keep per WP:HEY - good work by Geo Swan. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kaspbrak

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

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Fails WP:GNG. While there is coverage of the character, it is all in-universe. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with It. Apparently WP:NCHAR is unfortunately dormant and doesn't contain a lot of info so it's hard to judge under what parameters a fictional character should have its own article, but seeing as he's only appeared in a single work (plus the movie versions), I don't see the need.110.165.185.203 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional character should be judged by WP:GNG with sources that discuss the author's use of the character objectively. On your second point, he hasn't appeared in just a single work - according to this source the character appeared in The Bird and the Album and Dreamcatcher, and according to this source appeared in Misery.--Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like improper weight is being placed on the sources currently in the article. They do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of sourcing in an article is not a reason to delete. Notability is based on the existence of sources.----Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources e.g. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women", "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape", "Landscape of fear: Stephen King's American Gothic".----Pontificalibus 06:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Draft. Updated to keep below~~
Another 7 days from creation and the article is nominated for deletion without offers/suggestions on how to improve the article. ~~Perhaps in the draftspace some of what Pontificalibus found can be incorporated, along with other potential sources that might take more than a week to get from a library and contribute.~~ I see no reason why a deletion is the answer on something so new until it's clear no one is attempting to improve it. -2pou (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: [7]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [8] [9]. -2pou (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although 2pou has found one good independent source, the other articles are not able to be used toward verifiability because they are behind a paywall and even 2pou can not vouch that they are substantial. Therefore, still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If an editor with access is able to confirm they are substantial refs about the character Eddie Kaspbrak (i.e. an original analysis and not a plot summary), I will gladly change my vote.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not in question here - we are examining notability. Per WP:NEXIST it doesn't matter that the sources are not freely available online, we just have to demonstrate the existence of such sources. I have already given three sources above, but here is another one which you should be able to access sufficiently to see that the coverage is significant.----Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm seeing very little but plot regurgitation in the article you just gave as supposed "significant coverage". I don't think it is. This is exactly why saying sources exist is not enough. At least one person (not all editors, since it is behind a pay wall) needs to actually look at it to determmine that it has some real analysis beyond plot regurgitation. That can be assumed in good faith. But if an offline source is not actually being seen by anyone, than it really can't be counted in good faith. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" for example doesn't even cover the work from which this character is from. Deletion is still the best option, as this collective group has only actually been able to read one good source.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to disregard that one source, fine, but as I said above, "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" does cover the subject in detail, for example pages 131-132 go into detail about Eddie's relationship with his mother, and how the It monster symbolizes to Eddie his mother's relationship with him. This is clearly detailed analysis sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Likewise "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape" contains two pages of analysis, 150-151, which discuss how the author uses the character of Eddie to associate some of the major themes of the novel; sexuality and the link between obesity & death. It seems that the sources given by 2pou above contain similar if not more extensive coverage of the subject. There are really no grounds to delete this on the basis of notability or lack of sources. ----Pontificalibus 06:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed something when looking at that particular source, 4meter4. It is listed in the works covered (third from last) in the summary. I'm guessing an easy miss since it's only 2 characters, but a search will show a few instances of "Eddie" or "Eddie Kaspbrak" clearly attributed to the It character. (Can't get a ton of context, but the 3 viewable page snippets appear to be somewhat significant.) -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied that The Dark Descent has significant coverage as well based on the context I could read, making multiple GNG sources being evaluated as acceptable on this discussion. Plus I believe Pontificalibus's summary of Imagining the Worst coverage. -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to It (novel). All coverage of the character are in the context of his only appearance and does not have notability outside the book or requiring a separate article, the WP:PLOT material being redundant. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SIGCOVand the article has WP:RSs. Pontificalibus also found sources, clearly WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet. RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Sisters

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

I found no notability. Non-notable television series. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet as a one season show. Nate • (chatter) 07:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoqqua

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

Completely non-notable fictional creature. Only primary sources exist for this creature. No secondary sources discuss this creature in any way that denotes notability. Rorshacma (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is also being considered for deletion, so merge won't likely be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not a very active user (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Creed (character)

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

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pet Sematary. Demonstrates little real-world notability, as the sources are generally either plot-only, or are not particularly in depth. Calling him the "primary antagonist" of the book is kind of a stretch, and several of the sources present in the article don't seem to even support the information that they are being linked to. That said, as a fairly important character in a well-known book, redirecting this to the book's main article, where a detailed plot summary fully covering Gage's role, is already present.Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination raises some procedural points so let's dispose of those first. The prod is one of several made using an automated tool and using the same cookie-cutter rationale, "Zero real world notability". This assertion was made without evidence and was false because the article stated, for example, "Hughes' portrayal of Gage was universally acclaimed" and that's not zero. The prod process "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but opposition should always be expected in such cases because there are obvious alternatives to deletion, which are preferred per the policy WP:PRESERVE.

The nomination complains at the lack of explanation. It seems that they expect their rapid-fire, automated nominations to be responded to with elaborate explanations. Now, I did respond on the talk page and the most significant part of that was to post {{friendly search suggestions}}. These are not just there to look good; they are there to facilitate the searches which are required by WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." I naturally made such searches myself, was content with what I found, and a list of suitable sources will follow. It appears from these that Stephen King's works attract lots of literary criticism and these naturally go into detail about the major characters such as this. There is therefore ample scope to improve the article per our editing policy and so deletion is quite inappropriate.

Inherited Haunts: Stephen King's Terrible Children
Nightmare on Sesame Street: or, the self-possessed child
The monster never dies": An analysis of the Gothic double in Stephen King's oeuvre
Freaks: The Grotesque as Metaphor in the Works of Stephen King
The Ghost of the Counterfeit Child
Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre
Utterances Connected with Social Criticism in Stephen King's PET SEMATARY
Taking Stephen King Seriously
Evil Children in the Popular Imagination
Monsters and Mayhem: Physical and Moral Survival in Stephen King's Universe
Stephen King: A Literary Companion
Reading Stephen King: Issues of Censorship, Student Choice, and Popular Literature.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ALLPLOT. Andrew Davidson's doing his typical "I Googled up these sources, and you can't prove I didn't read them; maybe I read them and just don't understand Wikipedia policy" schtick shouldn't really be allowed to affect this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly the case, just looking at a few of these. This one,for example, is a student thesis in which Gage is only mentioned in a footnote summarizing the plot of the book, this one is nothing but a brief plot summary as is this one, and this one mentions the character in exactly two sentences, and barely even talks about the character in those sentences. This seems to just be the typical strategy of flooding the AFD with supposed sources, without actually providing the authorship or a link to them, in the hopes that no one does the work to track them down and analyze them for the poor sources they are.Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see". Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it. Appearing a footnote in a scholary thesis is evidence of notability, not the contrary. The coverage in the Literary Companion is a separate entry for the character which mainly focusses on its cameos in other works, rather than simply recapitulating the plot. These are all valid sources for various aspects of the article and their existence demonstrates that the character has been noticed and written about and so we are able to cover it without OR. There are lots more sources like this and, in providing a selection, I have gone way beyond what is required of me. The onus in this matter is on the nominator to make such searches as they are the person trying to make a case that no-one has noticed this subject. They have failed to provide any evidence; have misrepresented the facts of the matter and the deletionist claque isn't any better. Andrew D. (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it." Really? Because our guideline on notability states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", and I don't know how you can even pretend to claim that the two sentences present in the article in question is anything but the definition of trivial. As are the mentions in all of the other sources I actually bothered to look at. Does anyone really believe that mentioning two "cameos" of the character, one of which is not even of the character but of a shoe, and the other one is clearly stated in the same book to not even be the same character is "significant coverage"? Proving that the character's name comes up when you google it does nothing to indicate any notability of the character separate from their already-present coverage in the main article on the book, or why it needs to have a separate article from the already substantial coverage in the main article on the book. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These details are significant coverage in my view. They corroborate specific facts and that's what we require of citations. To call this "trivial" is just opinionated prejudice; assuming the thing that you're trying to prove. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not clearly the case. There's clearly some history here that I'm not privy to...
I did my own Google Scholar search, and I will vouch for at least two of the above articles. The fact that there are so many supports the fact that they WP:NEXIST regardless of the state of the article.
2. Nightmare on Sesame Street - Gage is covered extensively and believed to represent or fight against becoming brain-dead youth that watch too much TV.
6. Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre - Gage is compared throughout the article to Frankenstein's monster (as the title suggests)
I just don't want to do more than that, and two equates to multiple sources. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Until actually proven, it can be assumed none of the above have any merit as sources, as it would be easy to show two or three have significant coverage. By throwing twelve items without any context, it shows no actual thought went into it. TTN (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love your comment. Within less than two minutes you nominated four articles for deletion 1 2 3 4. If anything, it shows no actual thought went into it. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I spend 10 minutes on each article or no time at all, I don't think it would really matter to you. We seem to have completely contrary mindsets, so I doubt you'd much agree with me on anything regardless. TTN (talk)

I've supported a number of your nominations, but the sheer volume can be slightly frustrating when there is almost no context as to why something is failing GNG or what you did WP:BEFORE nominating it or coming to that conclusion. Seeing four nominations in less than two minutes doesn't build confidence that due diligence is being carried out is all I think MrCleanOut is saying. More context in nominations can help reduce workload on other reviewers and not alienate them into thinking, "Great. Here's another folder thrown on my desk that I need to do the legwork for since this two-word Post-it doesn't really tell me how it got here. How did I get stuck with this?" That's right, I wikilinked it -2pou (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this "proven" otherwise. See comment above highlighting the merit of two of the sources. At least two sources are extremely GNG worthy (and available for free). -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character except within the context of the work, which can be explained on the work's page. A redirect isn't required since Gage Creed already is a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ALLPLOT. This isn't a fandom wiki like you get for in-unverse characters for the Stephen King books, Star Wars, etc. There's no justification for keep based in the article or this AfD so far due to lack of in-depth sources that would be more focused on the book article. I was originally going to say redirect, but as Zxcvbnm points out, Gage Creed can handle that, and there's no need to use this as a search term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think All Plot should be a basis for improving the article, not deleting it. As I have stated below, this article is only a month old-2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D. The article has 7 references. A GSearch for ["Gage Creed" Stephen King] turns up 30 hits. This completely invalidates the imprecise and false delete rationale: Zero real world notability. The article may be poorly written at present, but there is ample scope to improve it as per WP:ATD which is Wikipedia POLICY. Deletion is inappropriate. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or put in Draft Onel I understand you're acting in good faith, but all these character AFD seem misguided to me in this case, the fact that these character articles are in poor shape does not mean they are all non-notable. King's works have had an insane amount of coverage and other users have already demonstarated that they can find several related to this character.★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pet Sematary, zero notability independent of the plot of the book. Andrew's latest copying of the top Google hits certainly establishes notability of this work and its author, but not the need for a separate article for its characters. These passing mentions are such a pathetic argument that merely proves that there isn't substantive coverage of this character in particular. Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace. Updated to keep below Another one turned into a redirect on the same day it was created. I guess I could see it being stumbled upon and redirected, not knowing its age, and at least there was justifiable rationale provided.... There are just so many of these, that it looks like a witch hunt. ~~Move it to a draft, and maybe it'll meet GNG when it's ready for the article space.~~ -2pou (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since multiple sources establish notability. Several pointed out by Andrew D, and I have verified some. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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