Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Genericusername57 (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 4 November 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Uhl. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 3 November 5 November >

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Uhl

George Uhl (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:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. #1 is a photo of (apparently) Mr. Uhl holding a tennis trophy; the remainder are listings of his industry awards, which don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful. I have also found no indication that Mr. Uhl meets any of the WP:NTENNIS criteria. Cheers, gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inayatullah Faizi

AfDs for this article:
Inayatullah Faizi (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 BLP has been discussed before, at a prior deletion debate in October 2017. At that time, the outcome was "keep", but I do rather feel that in-depth analysis of the sources was lacking during that debate, and there's an opportunity for us to discuss it more thoroughly. Strictly speaking the article may well qualify for speedy deletion under CSD X2, but as the article has been kept at a previous AfD I thought it better to renominate than to try to speedy it. —S Marshall T/C 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only source is a PR piece about him from a university he was in some way connected to. Nothing even remotely close to being an indepedent, reliable 3rd party source is present in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with the nominator that the decision of the previous AfD was unconvincing. But because of the language barrier I am not likely able to look for sources very effectively. I'd be willing to change my mind if sufficient in-depth independent reliable sourcing on him or his books can be found, regardless of its language. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Evans (politician)

Jordan Evans (politician) (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)

WP:BLP of a local politician in a small town, with no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:NPOL. The only political offices she has held are secretary of her political party's local chapter in her own town and trustee on the local library board, but these are not NPOL-passing offices -- and the only other attempt at a notability claim here is of the "first member of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" variety, which AFD has consistently held is not a free pass to being instantly more notable than other library trustees or committee secretaries. And as the sources go, two of the four are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are not fundamentally about her, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself rather than being written about in the third person -- so all of them would be fine for supplementary verification of facts if there were other, better sources alongside them, but none of them are notability clinchers in and of themselves if there aren't other, better sources alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is a classic pitfall of additional notability criteria such as WP:NPOL. Scroll up slightly to the heading above that, at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, and it says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and then, just in case anyone missed it, it repeats: "a person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." NPOL, or WP:ARTIST or WP:ATHLETE whatever are additional paths to notability, not narrow hurdles a bio must overcome. This subject meets WP:GNG because she has been the main topic of significant coverage in multiple, good-quality sources over a span of time, and not only for a single thing. This includes 2017 [1][2][3][4], and in 2018 [5], and in 2019 [6][7]. This is in addition to the citation from 2016 and three more from 2017 currently cited in the article. It would be nice if all of these had been mentioned in the stub, but it's not necessary, since WP:BEFORE requires not just checking the sources in the article, but taking a few minutes to do a basic search yourself before nominating at AfD. It took me about three minutes to locate these. I could have done it in even less time if I'd started at https://jwevans.co/media/ (self-serving media pages aren't reliable sources, but pointing out the existence of coverage makes our job easier). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those are not sources about her, but sources which merely quote her giving soundbite in an article that is about something or somebody else. A fourth (ThinkProgress) is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. A fifth (Boston Spirit) is a short blurb in a listicle in a local interest magazine. And while the other two would be fine for some additional verification of facts if the other sources in play were better and more substantive than they are, those two don't add up to enough — NewNowNext and Refinery29 are not sources that get a person over the GNG bar all by themselves if they're the best you can do. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, Agree completely re: ThinkProgress, a biased propaganda rag of John Podesta's left-leaning Center for American Progress. Refinery29 sounds like a blog; most of the others don't seem to meet WP:RS. Washington Post and NBC News articles look like tangential or passing mentions to me. Well cited rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Giving soundbite to the media is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself; Boston Spirit is a local interest magazine giving her a short blurb in a listicle, not a substantive or notability-making source; Cosmo is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, not an article being written about her by somebody independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of significant coverage where? Virtually every source that's been shown at all is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her to any non-trivial degree, a local-interest listicle, or a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person — only one source has been shown that even gets her off the starting blocks, and one valid source is not enough to get her to the finish line all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Special pleading has reached the level of adsurdity here. Being a member of a party committee at the town level is not a sign of notability, ever, under any circumstances. Being an elected member of a library board is never a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing here comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Sarang (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 organization. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. University-level institutions are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added text and a reference to indicate that this Institute attained autonomous status in 2017. There is also recent news coverage concerning on-campus conflict [8] and concerns over performance [9], [10], but my opinion relies more on the UGC classification. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon (festival)

Horizon (festival) (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 event. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Mobility Agenda

New Mobility Agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability; previously deleted via WP:PROD and restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. It is entirely possible that the topic itself is worthy of inclusion, and while the term appears to be used, I cannot tell from a cursory search how much this differs from, say, sustainable transport. Given the tone and next-to-nil sourcing, I cannot tell how much of the content is useful or relevant, which seems to make this a WP:TNT situation even if an article about it should exist. --Kinu t/c 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a French name to the organization? References may be in French as well as in English. I haven't found a lot of coverage in English, although the organization's director has been quoted a lot in major newspaper publications like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. The organization itself has not been the focus of those article which largely about larger transportation issues. The only publication of note I found was by an environmental lobby group, but I'm not really sure if it could be considered independent: [11].4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shurugwi District#Education. After a re-list (and re-check of name), still zero support to keep; clear consensus to Redirect (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlemiti primary school

Dlemiti primary school (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)

Nn primary school that was recently created directly in mainspace, "primary school" should have its first two letters capitalised. I'm unable to find anything on this school online -Google for example gives me suggestions for Clementi Primary School in Singapore. The current 5 plain text sources is not helpful and per WP:DEL#7, WP:DEL#8 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking I should have draftified this but happy with either — support John's comment above Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hughesdarren I think you mean Redirect if you are referring to my comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Fixed now, I was initially thinking delete but you changed my mind. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sources provided by those voting to keep the article seem to have been convincingly invalidated by the delete voters. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery Centers of America

Recovery Centers of America (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 firm. Almost all the references are local notice/PR, generally in connection with the opening of a new center. This is no longer acceptable sourcing, according to WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the sources I listed here and tell if these sources are acceptable per WP:NCORP. --Madhaberisl (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BizJournals contain almost exclusively press releases, and local press releases at that--including it at all is usually an admission that no RS exist, or that the contributor can't tell the difference. To prove this for yourself, read them. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, looks like it was taken from this press release published by businesswire.com the same day, but a few hours before it appeared on BizJournals. The same article was available on their official website as well, that has been removed, but one can easily see on Google. GSS 💬 07:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have become more diverse since the first re-list; try a second re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 06:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry (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)

It's hard to see how a rivalry can be notable if the best source describes it with quotes such as "I wouldn't say this is a big rival game for us" or "This has developed into a rivalry now on the basis of one game, I guess" Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've cited sources from both the University of Virginia and Florida State University, confirming that it's a rivalry, as well as an independent book about college football rivalries that it is indeed one. The quote above is from one person back in 1993 giving his opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the sources cited in the article actually has Bobby Bowden stating "You can talk about being a rival with someone, but it's not a true rivalry until both teams win a game." I bow to the great Bobby Bowden and say that if he says one game is not a rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bobby Bowden was actually saying it is a rivalry, to be fair. Both teams had won a game when he made that statement. Virginia was in fact the only conference team that had won a game against FSU at that time. George Welsh was the (Virginia) coach who said he didn't put much stock into one game (the opposite of what Bowden was saying). But I think this article is better served as focusing on the trophy than on the "rivalry" per se as the game is no longer regularly contested and was never more than a very small rivalry dreamt up by Bowden and the FSU president at the time. Omnibus (talk)
    • Again, that quote was from over 25 years ago. Things have changed since then and I'm sure his opinion has since changed. (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you show any evidence that his opinion has changed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The burden is not on me to show that his opinion changed. The point I was making is that the coach's opinion is not fact and thus should not be counted in this discussion. The fact is that both schools (ie administration and athletics) acknowledge this series as a rivalry and that I've provided proof for.
          • Ummm… yeah it is. If you're going to hold the position that an expert on college football like Bobby Bowden has changed his opinion that has been stated and published, then you need to provide some kind of evidence beyond your belief "that was 25 years ago so it might have changed."--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia does not work on opinion, it works on facts. The fact is that there is documented evidence that it's a rivalry game. What a coach, any coach, said about a rivalry at it's inception does not count as fact nor citation. You can cite that he said that at the start, but it does not disprove that it's a rivalry now. But again, my point is that his quote does not count as being evidence that it's not a rivalry. I've proven, by Wiki standards, that this game is a rivalry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a case of WP:NOT. Will we be creating articles about all sports rivalries? Isn't every game a rivalry in some way? It just does not seem encyclopedic to document such things. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- I don't think that is correct (that they only played twice). I'm not opining that it meets GNG, but they have played each other at least 19 times: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I say we send the article to draft until it reflects more accurately the situation. As it stands now, the article status and "reality" seem too diverse for a concrete discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rick lay95: Paul's suggestion to draftify seems reasonable. There's likely enough there to pass WP:GNG, but the article as it currently exists is a sub-stub that does not remotely capture the scope of the series. Draftifying will allow you to work on the article until it is ready for prime time. Sound ok? Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What if we turned this into an article about the trophy? The rivalry's not notable and should be deleted, the trophy might be notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another reasonable suggestion. And one that has precedent where the history of the trophy is the focus rather than the games themselves. Compare Illibuck Trophy, Little Brown Jug, Nickel Trophy, Sitting Bull Trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, so my vote is to rename (have fun with that, AfD Stats parser!) to Jefferson–Eppes Trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 05:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with rename as the rivalry itself is not notable. The trophy may not be either, but I'd be interested to see if someone can make it work. Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The very existence of a trophy makes the trophy notable enough for Wikipedia, in other words? That doesn't seem like it could be a correct assumption, but maybe it is. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as in time at both universities I never experienced a single person who thought this was a "rivalry game" in any sense of the phrase. It's played every five or six years and the only basis for being a rivalry game is that a trophy was once made up after UVA upset FSU and finally someone (didn't matter who) had beaten the 'Noles in the ACC. After Miami joined the conference, no one has ever pretended this is a rivalry game at all... and really, no one ever did before that point either that I'm aware of. On the other hand, the trophy was made at some point though I'm not totally sure it exchanges hands or has been seen since. As per above, I also vote to rename the article to Jefferson–Eppes Trophy and focus on those much older ties between the universities instead of trying to make a rivalry game out of a sporadically played game that has never really been a rivalry. Every single source as a "rivalry" is basically tongue-in-cheek... "although it's not a big rivalry" ... "it's a rivalry based on one game, I guess" ... and so forth. The trophy article might be a more earnest attempt at an encyclopedic article here. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas J. Greanias

Nicholas J. Greanias (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)

Does not meet the standards of WP:NPOL or WP:NPROF. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to Delete and a lean to Keep from the RS quoted; however, engagement stopped post the second re-list (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Positive environmentalism

Positive environmentalism (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)

Seemingly a neologism invented in 2006 (from the citation in the article) which has not caught on. A WP:BEFORE search turned up this 2014 article by George Monbiot whose title includes the expression, two other 2014 publications (1, 2) by Monbiot which mention the expression in passing, and this link on ELDIS about it. ELDIS seems to be WP:SELFPUB and therefore not WP:RS. The ELDIS link is of 2007 by one T. Clougherty, who (like the Alex Singleton relied on in the article) was associated with The Globalisation Institute. The fact that the headings on The Globalisation Institute's official website (you may not want to click on that link) are now "Penis Enlargement · Sperm Volume · Male Enhancement · Premature Ejaculation" suggests that their ambitions may have changed or have been changed for them. Fails WP:GNG, delete. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly keep. The concept is older than 2006. My university library search came up with 76 article hits, including 27 peer reviewed journal articles spanning back to 1994 and going up to 2018. Did you search Proquest or another academic search engine before making this nomination?4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Have you added any of those 76 sources to the article? Its edit history says not. Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my area of interest. I am just asking if you followed WP:BEFORE. That's a valid question since you chose to nominate the article.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the purpose of the question "Have you added any of those 76 sources to the article?" was. If the sources exist to pass GNG there is no requirement to add them to the article before keeping. If the questioner feels they need to be added, that falls under WP:SOFIXIT but is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not my area of interest and I am not interested in editing this article, but here are some peer reviewed journal sources and academic symposium records that discuss positive environmentalism (in multiple disciplines, including philosophy, theology, history, and science) from my university library. It is an internal database so I can not provide urls, but I am sure other academic search engines online have the same articles:
  1. "A rewilding agenda for Europe: creating a network of experimental reserves"; Jepson, Paul; Ecography, February 2016, Vol.39(2), pp.n/a-n/a
  2. "Conservative Social Christianity, the Law, and Personal Morality: Wilbur F. Crafts in Washington"; Foster, Gaines M; Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, 2002, Vol.71(4), pp.799-819
  3. "SYMPOSIUM ON THE SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF VILLAGE OF EUCLID v. AMBLER REALTY CO.: Euclid's Historical Imagery"; Richard H. Chused; Case W. Res., Vol.51 pp.597-749, 2001
  4. '"Unnatural unions": picturesque travel, sexual politics, and working-class representation in "A Night Under Ground" and "Life in the Iron-Mills"'; Silver, Andrew; Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers, 2003, Vol.20(1-2), p.94(24)
  5. "Beyond Hull House: New Interpretations of the Settlement Movement in America"; Spratt, Margaret; Journal of Urban History, September 1997, Vol.23(6), pp.770-776
  6. "Exploring conservation discourses in the Galapagos Islands: A case study of the Galapagos giant tortoises"; Benitez-Capistros, Francisco ; Hugé, Jean ; Dahdouh-Guebas, Farid ; Koedam, Nico, Ambio, Oct 2016, Vol.45(6), pp.706-724
  7. "From Hygeia To the Garden City: Bodies, Houses, and the Rediscovery of the Slum in Manchester, 1875—1910"; Platt, Harold L; Journal of Urban History, July 2007, Vol.33(5), pp.756-772
  8. "WIRELESS LOCALISM: BEYOND THE SHROUD OF OBJECTIVITY IN FEDERAL SPECTRUM ADMINISTRATION"; Olivier Sylvain; Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev., Vol.20 pp.121-523, 2013

Hope this will help move this discussion forward.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I also found this: Book review: The Politics of Crowd: An Alternative History of Sociology; Bertilsson, Margareta; Journal of Classical Sociology, November 2015, Vol.15(4), pp.450-456 which reviews a book which covers positive environmentalism in an in-depth way according to the review. There appears to be plenty of sources to make a good article.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that a WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen has met notability for this subject. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Birchard

AfDs for this article:
Paul Birchard (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 subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subject is a minor and entirely unknown actor. Subject has never had "significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

First link to the NYTimes.com is broken and goes nowhere. In the second source, his name is mentioned along with the rest of the play ensemble in a very short review from 2010. The third source is an obituary of an obscure lecturer. Finally, the fourth source is a link to a profile of his son. Taken together, there is nothing notable about this collection of citations.

A search of the subject's name on IMDB returns numerous Paul Birchards – one would be hard-pressed to know which of these corresponds to the Paul Birchard listed here.

A search of the article subject's name on Google primarily reveals URLs to the subject's personal homepage.

Article subject seems to have a well-known son by the name of Hudson Mohawke, but this does not entitle subject to having a Wikipedia page. I note that Mohawke's Wikipedia page has a line about Paul Birchard being his father and links to Birchard's Wikipedia page. This is circuitous.

Do we propose that the parents of all notable musicians should have their own Wikipedia pages?

Finally, I note that there are over 9 million actors and crew members listed on IMDB. I fail to see how appearing on this database meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.Nonmerci33 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see too much coverage and content is not well referenced, which means the creator may be associated to the person. Should someone improve the article, keep only the referenced content and find more coverage, perhaps it can be reconsidered. His 2019 Role as Ernest Hemingway, might get him some additional coverage in the future. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The NY Times article does not mention Birchard, and a search of the NY Times archive does not retrieve anything. The other sources do not give very significant coverage of Birchard. It appears that his acting roles have been minor characters. The football song seems to be the only really interesting thing, and it was just one song that does not appear to have been a top Billboard 100 song. As noted above, it is not even clear if all this information applies to a single Paul Birchard, or perhaps more than one. It has not been demonstrated that this person is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is not adequate enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is definitely more sourcing that can be added, from the British Newspaper Archive for example, and more productions which he has appeared in, in some of which he had lead roles. Many Wikipedia articles about actors seem to have been created based on what is in IMDB. That does not mean that IMDB is the only source - and it's clearly not a complete source, when it covers only screen appearances, not stage performances. It seems to have been a quick way to create articles (this one was created in 2006), and is not a reflection on the notability or otherwise of the subjects. I will try to find the time to add more sources and info to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:RebeccaGreen, you are such a good researcher. I wish you would use your skills to expand the articles of really notable stage actors instead of documenting the workaday careers of non-notable actors.You could start with people who have won Oliver awards in the West End and Tony Awards on Broadway. Just a suggestion. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, thank you for the compliment! However, I don't know that the actors I research are non-notable, until I research more. In the case of this person, I see TV, radio and cinema listings in newspapers from the 1990s and 2000s saying "Stars John Cusack and Paul Birchard" [14]; "Judi Dench, Susan Porrett, Susannah Morley, Paul Birchard, Sylvia Barter, Bill Nighy" [15]; "With Giles Havergal and Paul Birchard" [16]. Of course, not all of the actors appearing in productions with definitely notable actors like Judi Dench, Bill Nighy and John Cusack will be notable themselves - but perhaps they will meet WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions, and therefore merit a Wikipedia article, allowing others who come across their names in listings like the above to find out who they are/were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added more sources and information, about him and about his career. I believe the evidence shows that he does meet WP:NACTOR. There are more digitised newspapers I can look through, so I may be able to find more reviews - and I have yet to look for sources for all the info that was already in the article (films, computer games, football song, etc). I will keep adding more, but perhaps Expertwikiguy and Ssilvers would like to consider his career as shown now. No, he may not be a "really notable actor" who has won awards, but he has had significant roles in notable productions, and garnered good reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your prerogative, Ssilvers. I do not read "significant roles" as "starring roles", as I think if it meant that, it would say so. Supporting roles can also be significant. The Wikipedia article about Sweet Bird of Youth only names three characters. Bud is one of the main male character's "old friends [who] call his bluff and see him for what he has become", and he helps with the (implied/actual) castration of Chance at the end. (By the way, I don't think the inhabitants of Edinburgh, the capital city of a country, would appreciate being called "regional".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edinbugh is not a major theatre market, except for the Edinburgh International Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The only really major theatre markets are West End and Broadway (and long-running UK and US national tours). Everything else is regional, or local, if you prefer, or "off-something", including Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, off-Broadway and all other theatre markets. I agree that a supporting role "can be" significant, but it is not necessarily significant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard (unit)

Standard (unit) (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 unit of measurement probably doesn't exist. Of the three sources currently in the article, the third doesn't mention the subject, the second uses the word "standard" as an adjective while talking about something else, and the first is a book full of sloppy errors and hilarious misreadings. I did a search and can find no indication that this ever existed. Reyk YO! 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Petrograd Standard which is the same thing and certainly existed as a common measure of timber in places like Britain. Petrograd is another name for St. Petersburg. It's not clear how Pittsburg comes into this and it's probably just a misprint or misreading of Petersburg. Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain which information from this page you would add to Petrograd Standard? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article to explain the matter more fully and so have revised my !vote to that below. As the Petrograd standard was one of many such standards, any merger should be into this page, as it is more general. I find that the Pittsburgh reference is in multiple sources and so we should retain this aspect pending further investigation. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a perfect exemplar of Cardarelli incompetence: the ridiculous excessive decimal digits, the misreading of simple words (Petrograd v Pittsburgh), the confusion about what's actually being measured (firewood or construction timber?), and the misreading of an adjectival qualifier as a proper name. Although, to be fair, the person responsible for some of these incomprehensions might be Shevonsilva rather than Cardarelli. Reyk YO! 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything worth merging to any existing article, given the doubtful quality of the sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Add: note that the single source at Petrograd Standard has only this to say on the general unit: The units of measurement are called "Standards" and there is little resemblance between the different "standards". Fittingly, what is presented here as the standard appears to be a specific one (Pittsburgh), and in that capacity is too badly sourced (as noted above). Delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Wavering... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, settling for Keep now. The "standard vs "standard hundred" issue still looks a little unclear, but that's more of a title problem, if it is one. IMO article content and sourcing are good enough for tenure now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded the article using a variety of sources which seem to have eluded all the nay-sayers above. Their !votes are all now obsolete and the validity of the topic is adequately verified. I have browsed numerous other sources in the course of this and there seems to be more to be said about the standards which applied in other parts which have yet to be covered, such as the timber producing areas of Canada. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE and WP:STICK. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The added text and refs continue the misunderstanding of standard. Here is the text from The Dictionary of Trade Products, Manufacturing, and Technical Terms, p. 358]:

      Standard, an upright of iron, for fencing; a flag; a test or rule of measure; a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries. The St. Petersburg standard hundred of deals, and deal ends, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 1½ inch thick, and 11 inches broad, = 165 cubic feet. The Swedish standard hundred contains 121 pieces, 14 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The Norwegian standard hundred contains 120 pieces 12 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The standard hundred by which battens are commonly sold, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 2½ inches thick, and 7 inches broad. Dantzic and Memel deck deals are sold by a standard of 40 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 12 inches wide. The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons, and that of white wood 2½ tons. The term standard is used to designate the purity and weight of coins, that is, [...more information on standard coins not shown; the text omitted is twice the size of the text shown...]

That discusses what was used as a standard for trading certain goods. No one called a timber yard and said "I want a standard". The text refers to a standard hundred—I'm not sure what that refers to, perhaps something like a hundredweight? There is no such thing as a standard as portrayed in the article which is perpetuating a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Much as I dislike Andrew's rote recitation of policy buzzwords and the inevitable flagging-over of that little canvassing club - but the quoted text actually makes a rather good case for "standard" constituting a measurement unit (or term for such) on its own. Standard, [...] a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries - that's a separate thing, not a modifier for "hundredweight" or something like that. Later use in the same passage (The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons) seems to bear that out. I can't check the other sources, but if they show the same usage, then that would seem adequate sourcing to me. - In which case Petrograd Standard should be merged here, as suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Petrograd Standard into this article then, as redundant and integrally within its scope. Reywas92Talk 02:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the attempted rewrite simply perpetuates the misuse of the adjective "Standard" as a proper name. Adding some pictures of ships doesn't change that, nor obsolete anyone's vote. As pointed out by Johnuniq, nobody is going to call a timber yard or write to St Petersburg and say "I'd like a standard please" and claiming otherwise is faintly misleading. Reyk YO! 06:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED confirms the usage as "A definite quantity of timber, differing in different countries" and gives examples of usage including: "A ‘Petersburgh Standard’ ... consists of 120 deals of 12 feet long by 11 inches wide and 1½ inch thick. [This = 165 cubic feet.]" (1864 Daily Telegraph); "The vessel contained about 1000 standards ... A standard was 165 cubic feet of timber." (1891 Law Times). Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also had trouble with the title and would be open to that or maybe standard hundred (unit). I'm seeing some variation in the sizes which I don't know if they are errors or changes over time. StrayBolt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SILS gastric banding

SILS gastric banding (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)

Created by a single purpose account, this ref bombed article is carefully constructed to create the impression of authoritativeness when in fact only a few of the sources provided refer to the procedure that is the topic of the article. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article is seriously in need of updating; much of it was written by User:Obesitysurgeons (a username that would instantly get blocked today) back in 2009 before the review articles were written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Autumn of Protests

2019 Autumn of Protests (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)

Per my comment on its talk page - many of the protests are unconnected; the article tries to connect them, when it would serve more accurately (no OR or SYNTH) as merely a 'List of protests in October 2019' Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my own comment on talk page many of the protests are connected; and I have various sources proving that notion. The UN even agrees that these protests are connected in some form (I'll link that source). Please take your time to read the following sources, which explain how and why they're connected: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] If you need more sources, I can get you more sources. Foxterria (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can break those down. Take the most reliable, the BBC, which says 'they're unconnected but some have common themes'. It then connects protests in Latin America by one theme, protests in the Middle East by another theme, Hong Kong and Catalunya by another, and then throws in Extinction Rebellion. This isn't saying they're all related. Or by your count, the climate protests should be included. The Reuters article did exactly the same and the UN connects them even less, saying all the protests are different but are evidence that people around the world have decided to stand up for their desire to be heard. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC also says 'While thousands of miles apart, protests have begun for similar reasons in several countries, and some have taken inspiration from each other on how to organise and advance their goals.', like you said, we can break them down. There are again several sources relating them with one another. This isn't just a series of protests omnipresent in Latin America, it's quite a global phenomenon of political tension and anti-government notion that have flared up at the same time. Foxterria (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, the BBC connects Latin America and the Middle East hand in hand. Foxterria (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I borrow a quote from you there: some have taken inspiration from each other - not that they have all taken inspiration. As I said, similar reasons in some areas, but not the entire world, so it's inappropriate to link the entire world's protests. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It connects Latin America and the Middle East in a passing reference to previous protests. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? The BBC itself connects these various protests throughout the entire article except the climate change ones, which is why the page '2019 Autumn of Protests' doesn't include climate change because it's irrelevant. The parts of the article on political freedom, corruption, income inequality and inequality links all the protests altogether except the climate change protests. Can you read the article please? I believe you haven't even read it completely in order to make that argument. Foxterria (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article. I feel you might be willfully or accidentally misinterpreting it. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I might need to expand on this. The articles all say pretty much one thing: there's a growing protesting sentiment around the world. Some of these attribute it to Hong Kong being in the news. But for the protests to be related, what is ultimately being protested against has to be connected, beyond themes like 'inequality' that everyone is generally angry about. With Latin America, there's a specific regional economic background and unease radiating from Venezuela that's kicked them all off. Even though Catalunya and Hong Kong are in quite similar situations, their protests obviously have ties that are much too local to be related (and are too historic to really count here). So, to see the articles as connecting all the protests into a global movement is an inaccurate reading. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a separate comment, I link a draft I made for 2019 Latin America democracy protests; here the sources refer to the protests as a Latin American wave and have experts discuss the geopolitical background that caused protests to happen in this place at this time. I feel this serves as a comparative and an example of how some of the global protests are connected, but at regional levels; Latin America has a long interconnected political and economic history and a shared protest culture that defies being tied too closely to protests elsewhere. Kingsif (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title is inappropriate for events which span both northern and southern hemispheres, as Autumn occurs at different times of year in the hemispheres.-gadfium 02:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I searched for a WP:COMMONNAME for all these protests, to no avail so far. Leaning towards delete. An article in Washington Post says the circumstances vary from place to place, "but over the past few years, we have seen the rise of populism and nationalism around the world — and with it have come short-sighted policies that are stunting long-term growth". The article could be recreated if a common name emerges, similar to Autumn of Nations or Arab Spring. Brandmeistertalk 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-50123743
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-protests/season-of-discontent-protests-flare-around-the-world-idUSKBN1X127J
  3. ^ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-98152-9_10
  4. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/26/exp-gps-1027-fareeds-take.cnn
  5. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/10/23/protests-lebanon-chile-hong-kong-orig-md-mss.cnn
  6. ^ https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1050031
  7. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/surge-protests-around-world-october-180230008.html
  8. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/protests-iraq-find-outlet-world-snapchat-n1072266
  9. ^ https://www.scmp.com/video/scmp-originals/3034668/what-sparked-flare-protests-around-world
  10. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/protests-around-the-world-explained/
  11. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/protests-rage-around-the-world-hong-kong-lebanon-chile-catalonia-iraq
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 15:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Barish

Keith Barish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. None of the references I looked at were actually about him TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject Co-founded Planet Hollywood according to Newsweek, in addition he was a movie producer for major big-budget Hollywood movies like The Fugitive. The article has many passing mention references and we need more in depth references, but that does not diminish the notability of the subject. I will work on finding these additional refs if I have time. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is Yellow the Middle of the Rainbow?

Why Is Yellow the Middle of the Rainbow? (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)

Can find no professional reviews or reliable media coverage about this film. Note that the present footnote #1 is about the real-life events that inspired the film, and some of the others are about festivals at which the film was played but with no precise commentary on the film itself. All that can be found otherwise are the typical retail listings and IMDB-like directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The film has been discussed at length in scholarly articles such as Christopher Pavsek's "Kidlat Tahimik's 'Third World Projector'" (2013) and Patrick Campos' "Kidlat Tahimik and the Determination of a Native Filmmaker" (2015), with both authors regarding it as Tahimik's greatest work. Pavsek emphasized Kidlat's unique mode-of-production for the film ("cups of gas" filmmaking) and the spaces depicted in it in how they indicate Tahimik's perspective, while Campos honed in on its central themes of independence, identity, and what "third world" means, along with Tahimik's eventual focus on Ifugao culture being an actualization of his own cinema (the achievable freedom from neocolonialism). LionFosset (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found more reliable sources (BFI, Harvard Film Archive, TIFF & Time Out) Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator - I must point out the "there must be sources" fallacy. The first commenter (LionFosset) listed professional journal articles but is wrong about "discussed at length." The first by Pavsek analyzes three other films by the same filmmaker, and the second by Campos only mentions this film once as an example of the filmmaker's work. So those sources are valid for the Kidlat Tahimik article but do little for this film article. Meanwhile, the second commenter (Espngeek) has added a new source that is also about the filmmaker and not the film, and added some sources that are about the festivals at which the film was played but again are not about the film itself. As the nominator I am willing to improve the film's article in light of sources that I may have missed at the time, but the folks in this discussion have only provided evidence of festival appearances and discussion of the filmmaker's larger career. There are sources that can improve Kidlat Tahimik but this particular film is the item of discussion here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the advice, DOOMSDAYER520, though Campos mentioning the film "once" is a bit of a stretch, as he does focus on the film in his article (but yes, as an example of his cinema). Maybe you searched for "Why Is Yellow...", even though Campos refers to it more as "Bakit Dilaw" or "Bakit Yellow". LionFosset (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I stumbled upon on this film (well, the director actually) mentioned in a book but sadly I forgot about the title and it was also a public library that I read during 2011. Was it written by his German wife? I am not so sure now so not much to contribute here though. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Need for Hope

A Need for Hope (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)

Can find no critical reviews or other reliable media coverage for this book. The article is probably promotional and was created by the author or someone mimicking his name. All that can be found are the typical retail listings. (And while it's not relevant here, the uniformly raving "customer" reviews at Amazon are suspicious too.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google hits are not seen as something that can establish notability per this guideline. As far as the knowledge panel goes, this is created by bringing up information about the source. So for example, if there's information about the book in say, places like Goodreads or WorldCat, Google's Knowledge Graph would pull upon those sources to bring up an applicable panel. It's not in itself a sign of notability, just a sign that there are enough links (reliable or not) that give information about the book. If it's listed on many sale sites or places like Goodreads, those will typically be enough to bring up a knowledge panel. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. I did a search and there's just nothing out there. Unfortunately independently published works typically don't gain coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable, however there's not really anything that Wikipedia can do about that. My recommendations for indie authors typically revolves around just reaching out to people for reviews - not just media outlets like newspapers but also review blogs. Almost all review blogs will be seen as non-reliable sources, however getting a good word of mouth can lead to gaining coverage in the places that are seen as reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rationale: The !votes to keep the article are greater both in number and strength; one editor suggested a merge, which gained insufficient traction for consensus, and the only voice calling for deletion other than the nominator did so unconvincingly. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism

Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism (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)

Redundant and insufficiently notable. We already have an article called Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893). Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not sufficient for a notable event. The subject doesn't meet WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. Though the Swami's contributions to the parliament as a whole may have some impact beyond India, I don't see this particular speech as having any such international impact, let alone a lasting international impact. All i see is a clear case of blatant WP:SOAPBOXING. Though I have already removed some unsourced content in the article, the problems remains that the subject is misleading in that it claims importance for merely a particular lecture given on one particular conference, with the only evidence of impact being four words in a Bengali scholar's book published by a religious organisation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Expanded.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment coverage in multiple books Only two of which are secondary, reliable sources, that is, King 2013 and Amore 1979. The rest of the references used in the article are all primary.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as above. Has at least 2 decent academic RS, & gets an avge 11 views a day, which isn't bad for a lecture from 1897, so I don't agree with the nom (which was foolish not to mention a merge). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much mind. But there's a decent case for a merge rather than keep, and no case for a straight delete. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, then would you mind changing your vote to merge? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article as Swami Vivekananda was one of the most famous spiritual leader/poet of India, and one of the greatest historical figures of the 20th century. This talk was one of the most historical event for the Indian diaspora, as the first person of Indian origin making a religious discourse in the US, let alone outside of India. However, I would suggest improving the article instead to articulate better for readers and users. Additionally, references or links could be included.Hari147 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. The premise is false. Make another page for tthe Swami. The title has it backward. Buddhism predates Hinduism. Buddha lived some 4,600 years ago, probably in the Indus Valley where a civilization arose which traded with the Sumerians across the western mountains. Hindu arose a few hundred years later, about 4,300 years ago. Hpfeil (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether his arguments in the lecture are correct is not at all relevant. And all modern historians use dates different to those by 2,000 years or so. Johnbod (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep - AfD is not the place for this copyright discussion. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100 Women (BBC)

AfDs for this article:
100 Women (BBC) (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 great information but it is also a model project and we need to have copyright in order. As described at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list? this content is covered by copyright and seems ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The most particular reason for deletion is conflict with Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. We should sort this - it is a model project for others to emulate, and it would be an error to leave this if we do not have copyright license to publish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is confused as to what this is an article about. 100 Women is a TV program that aired on the BBC, so the sole question that would be relevant here is whether that program is notable, on which no question has been raised. Whether it happens to be a copyvio to list the 100 women featured in each series (and I doubt that) is not a question for this forum, as we would not delete the entire article to remedy that. The nominator points to a discussion on that issue from three years ago that did not reach a conclusion or consensus that there was a copyvio issue. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no copyright in facts. The fact is that these are the 100 names selected as each year's "BBC 100 Women". If we had copied the descriptions word-for-word from the BBC site there might be a question about the copyright, but we have not (eg in 2019 Jasmin Akter: we say "Rohingya refugee and cricketer", BBC said "UK-Bangladesh cricketer"). And, as postdlf says, the question is not whether the article should be deleted (it's undoubtedly a notable TV series), but whether some of the content of the article should be deleted as copyright, so this should not be at AfD. PamD 17:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually UK copyright law, and others, recognise "compilation rights", and many lists are not allowed on WP. But this is not really an Afd issue, but to argue over at the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Afd rationale is flawed. This is article is about a BBC program, so is notable. If there was any copyright content within it, it would been removed long ago. I suggest close this as Snow Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The TV programme itself meets our notability criteria. However, publishing the full list of 100 names each year appears to be a copyright issue, and this has been discussed on the article talkpage, although that seems to have fizzled out almost three years ago. Perhaps that discussion could be revived. Edwardx (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep - AfD is not the place to hash out copyright issues. There's no dispute about the notability of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany Audio

AfDs for this article:
Hexany Audio (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)

UPE from indeffed editor, blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. In the first AfD User:HighKing goes into greater details about the failings of the sourcing.
Since the last AfD Keep !voters User:Germcrow, User:Laosilika, User:Benleg4000, User:ParinazF, User:Sora Sailor, User:OliverKianzo, User:Nubtrazolacine have all been indeffed as upe, spam/advertising only and/or sock accounts. Also also blocked is User:Mister305akamisterworldwide and User:PANGIfroth who edited/requested edits the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just like the last time, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Interesting to see that of the 9 editors that !voted to Keep at the previous AfD, *8* have since been blocked for promotion/spam/etc. From the previous AfD:
  • There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also participated in the discussion for deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) "passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions." I can circle back and reconsider after I see what other editors can find. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't only nominated because it was promotional - it needs multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing++ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tilda Del Toro

Tilda Del Toro (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)

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has lots of sources but they are not good for GNG, interviews, routine announcements, imdb. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Arvinder

AfDs for this article:
Erik Arvinder (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)

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable studio musician/arranger. Has worked with a lot of artists but notability is not inherited from them. Lots of credits but primarily as a session player, none saying notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You nominated this before already, it got relisted twice, and closed on 4 July 2019. Now you are trying again? Anyway, the Google news search results are mostly not in English. The Quietus is a reliable source and comments on him and his work at [24]. A musician is known for their work, and that many famous people wouldn't work with him for notable albums unless he was quite skilled. His work is part of something notable, so that makes him notable under the subject specific guidelines for musicians. WP:NMUSIC Dream Focus 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was nominated and kept as late as July this year. And already re-nominated. Still reliable sources and passes WP:GNG per work in music as per previous AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My !vote is the same now as it was then. The article is referenced with non-trivial coverage and the subject has achieved notability in his field. Regarding the "UPE" it is troubling, but does not diminish the notability of this person. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look. The advertisement rescue squad has been canvassed. At least Dream Focus has supplied us with a good source. Not like the other two vague waves. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't be bothered to reinvestigate since I just did so this about 5 months ago. The second AfD gave me the WP:NOTAGAIN feeling. This time I put the article on the ARS list in hopes that someone there could find something more. I am sorry that you are bothered by that. I hope that the diligence of Dream Focus can allay your suspicions about canvassing. DF was not involved in the last AfD you placed on this article, and as such they did their own checking. Perhaps I will work on the article a bit more. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to see good diffs of me and Lightburst being canvassed to come here and !vote. Otherwise I will consider it meaningless slander. We both know that you will not provide any such diffs, so please think twice before making these kind of accusations in the future.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Arvinder is a perennial journeyman and sideman, and most of his notice is in relation to the people he has collaborated with, but the other voters in this and the previous nomination have found some reliable sources (such as Quietus) that might justify a stub article. This one needs to be cleaned up with unreliable sources removed, but that is a different process. Also, a nominator who throws accusations at voters with whom he disagrees should deliver the same level of evidence that he demands from everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - journeyman musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Regarding canvassing. It's obvious, since not a single person who belongs to the "rescue squad" has made a meaningful contribution to the article in an effort to show notability. Rather, after posting on that page, they simply came here to !vote. That's pretty much the definition of canvassing. That being said, I would not include BabbaQ, since I don't believe they are part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not all musicians are notable. I don't think he is composing his own music or such, he just works for orchestras/etc. No awards. No reviews of his work. No in-depth coverage. What makes him notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing is somewhat weaker than I would have preferred – true also for the sentences I've added – but to say he just works for orchestras makes it sound like what he does is less important than it is. Making an arrangement for an orchestra is a creative endeavour akin to composing. (In addition to his supporting roles for television, other musicians and so on.) /Julle (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Stephens (actor)

AfDs for this article:
Richie Stephens (actor) (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)

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claim from last afd of significant parts failed to identify any. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax (band)

AfDs for this article:
Hoax (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

UPE from indeffed editor. Promotion for Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Sources identified last time, [25], [26] are both interviews lacking independent analysis, insufficient independence. Also questionable reliability, [27], [28] (?every single article by the one author) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of the unfortunate UPE the article can be cleaned up. I base my !vote on the article. There is enough notability. There is some refs to be found in alternative music press: [29]. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This article already survived an AfD earlier this year, with a flimsy "no consensus" result, but here the same nominator is trying again with the same rationale. The band has indeed been profiled in the alternative press: e.g. [30] and they have been profiled by Rolling Stone India: [31]. I admit it's not much so that's why my vote is "weak keep", but the band's notability and the conflict of interest with the article's author are two different issues. If the band is deemed notable, the article can be rescued from the clutches of a paid promoter and improved by the volunteer community. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to weak keep; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people involved with Babylon 5

List of people involved with Babylon 5 (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 am also nominating the following related pages :

This duplicates information that is already present in the bodies and infoboxes of Babylon 5 and Crusade (TV series), and their Lists of episodes. IMDB is a better place for this kind of list-y presentation. – sgeureka t•c 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - While both of these TV shows are themselves notable, it is not clear that the sets of people involved in the production of each are themselves notable. Following WP:LISTN, I can't see that either of these have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources; neither article provides such a source and I have been unable to find one myself.
Edit - So sorry, I forgot to sign this yesterday. WJ94 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cairokee. Standard practice to redirect non-notable albums to the artist. No prejudice against restoration as an article if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Sekka Shemal

El Sekka Shemal (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)

Album fails WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Blackgate

Emperor Blackgate (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)

What makes this fictional character notable? I can't see any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Line

AfDs for this article:
Battle of the Line (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 event failing WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Quite well referenced, but it's pretty much PRIMARY all mentions in passing. Could be redirected to Earth-Minbari War but that is not going to outlast it much, perhaps Babylon 5: In the Beginning movie might be a valid target...? In either case, this is not notable enough to be more than a redirect, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oberyn Martell

AfDs for this article:
Oberyn Martell (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 minor GoT character who appeared in few episodes. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Mentions limited to fictional character biography/episode summaries/etc. There is an interview with the actor [33] and the actor even got some awards, but those are indications of the ACTOR's notability, not the CHARACTER's. WP:NOTINHERITED - let's not confuse recognition for the actor with that for the (very minor) character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic already has plenty of sources and so the nomination is yet another WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Games of Thrones is the modern equivalent of Shakespeare's plays, there is plenty more critical commentary out there. As usual, the nominator has not done the due diligence required by WP:BEFORE as one can immediately find coverage like the following. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

    The character of Oberyn Martell, for example, begs for a reading as an attack on Western bigotry, homophobia, and racism. Oberyn's depiction encapsulates a variety of fears, compounded and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness. ... In Dorne, the tolerance of homosexuality, and polygamy in the series is present by the depiction of Oberyn Martell ... Oberyn Martell is the son of the Prince of Dorne, has eight daughters by five different wives, and ...

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Night King

Night King (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)

So... what makes this fictional character notable? Sure, GoT was very popular those last few years, but its characters still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. And there is very little about this one out there. Few mentions in passing, a good amount of episode summaries he appears in/fictional characters bios, but... I don't think that's enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are a huge amount of online news articles about the Night King. Granted, a lot of it is just paraphrasing various interviews or speculation, but they are in reliable sources, showing it's a character of note and there are not just a "few mentions in passing". As a primary villain of the show, he seems like a strange choice to choose to delete first.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy keep. The character was the main protagonist in the series and as such appeared throughout the nearly decade long series. And there is SIGCOV. We keep these articles because they are a net positive for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect based on current sourcing provided in the article. It currently doesn't establish notability, and the assertion that sources exist is currently unproven. TTN (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep JL

Sandeep JL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual, lacking reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Jackson

Cameron Jackson (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:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: None of the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. #1 is a (very NSFW) porn magazine which lists Mr. Jackson's purported vital statistics. #2 is a promotional interview on a porn site in which Mr. Jackson makes unduly self-serving remarks. The other three are listings of Mr. Jackson's industry awards: these don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only a handful of passing mentions. Cheers, gnu57 07:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. gnu57 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ferns N Petals. After a re-list, no desire to Keep, and a consensus to Redirect to Ferns N Petals (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikaas Gutgutia

Vikaas Gutgutia (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 page has been tagged since 2015 for COI and notability issues. The article was created by the BLP (per username). I do not believe this person is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. I think it should be merged with Ferns N Petals. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Wolfe

Bret Wolfe (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:BASIC and WP:NACTOR: None of the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. I looked for new ones and found only two interviews. (I haven't listened to the podcast one.) I don't believe Mr. Wolfe's industry awards count towards anything either, now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. His roles in non-pornographic films and plays (listed in his resume) do not appear significant. Cheers, gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Harvey

Cecilia Harvey (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)

Created by undisclosed paid editor, lacks in-depth news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources for her research into queen bee syndrome, but they are all based around interviews (which don't count toward notability). My question is, does the extent to which they're based around interviews overwhelmingly count them as only an interview and not count toward notability, or does the independent prose interspersed with the interview material count them toward notability? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Undisclosed paid editor"? On what basis? No-one has suggested it on the editor's talk page, or asked whether they have a WP:COI. It's not a phrase to be thrown around lightly. Yes, it's this editor's only contribution, they worked on it in their sandbox and then copied that into a new article, but that doesn't prove they are paid editor. Ask them about COI first? And leave them a welcoming template: WP:AGF. PamD 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, I am not sure if I am smart enough. But it is 1,000% paid editing from a big sock farm. It was a proper planned perfect execution, the biggest hint I got with the photo, a private, nice high quality photo uploaded on commons from flickr. So first, a new flickr account created in October 2019, Photo was uploaded on flickr on 15 Oct, uploaded on commons on 17 Oct, page editing started on sandbox from 10 Oct, made over 10 edits, got auto confirmed account and moved to mainspace on 21 October with no errors. Who can do this without knowing everything about Wikipedia, a new editor or someone who is super-expert in it? If you want MER-C can elaborate it even better, who is best among all admins in this. Meeanaya (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wakowako, can you please share 3-4 in-depth news articles about her that you are talking about? Just check that the news articles you share are not just mere mentions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, as they can represent "the world at large" taking notice of a person. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hello Meeanaya, fyi, i haven't shared articles. But those references clearly counts WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent reliable sources thus deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. --Wakowako (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she is notable for anything then it appears to me that it is only for her research into queen bee syndrome, which has numerous articles from reliable sources. However the degree to which those articles are interviews, or focus on her paper rather than on her, makes this difficult for me to judge her notability based on sourcing. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Capitol Cinemas

New Capitol Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable company. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can find a considerable amount of ... let's call it light coverage (better than passing mentions, but not really dedicated to the topic) of this company in the context of historical examinations of Botswana's film industry (for example, a paragraph or so in Parsons, Neil (2014). "False Dawns over the Kalahari?: Botswana Film Production in Historical Perspective". In Ukadike, Nwachukwu Frank (ed.). Critical Approaches to African Cinema Discourse. Lexington Books. pp. 135–154. ISBN 978-0-7391-8093-8.). If this were an American or British movie theater chain, and that's the best I could do, I'd be right with you advocating for deletion. But African cinema (and African media, more broadly) is under-represented in online sources; that I can find what I can find suggests that local media would likely have more in-depth coverage. Yeah, yeah, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, I know. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locathah

Locathah (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 D&D topic TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guest host

Guest host (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 tagged for not citing any sources back in January 2009. If much-needed sources are added while avoiding the article becoming a pureWP:FANCRUFT & WP:JUNK article for several TV and radio programs, could the article avoid being deleted? Or would deletion either through the normal process or even going nuclear with WP:SPEEDY be right for this article? Pahiy (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Pfeifle

Felix Pfeifle (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 person. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there are simply no in-depth sources covering the subject, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says or wants to say themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. If coverage on reliable sources are missing then it is not eligible to have an article.Kakaey (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability. I have searched and found very little, though this[4] may count for something. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion, though it needs improvement so have added tag for BLP references. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline King

Jacqueline King (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 feels more like a resume and not a Wikipedia article, As I said with Mary Scheer’s article, if deletion is not an option, I want to see solid evidence this article meets WP:NACTOR or even possibly WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh from there. Pahiy (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The trend of the discussion is Keep, but some indication of sources to support notability would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 09:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Scheer

Mary Scheer (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 uses Internet Movie Database as a primary source. If deletion is not an option, I want to see solid evidence this article meets WP:NACTOR or even possibly WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh from there. Pahiy (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controls (song)

Controls (song) (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)
You Carry a Sickness / Park Street (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)
What Are You Gonna Do with Yourself (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)

Three articles about songs by the same artist, none of which have any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS or any strong reliable source coverage about them. None of these songs did anything special to establish them as notable, such as charting or winning music awards -- and the references here are not about the songs as songs, but merely namecheck their existence in the process of being fundamentally about the entire albums they come from. This is not how you make a song notable enough to have its own standalone article separately from being mentioned in the album's article: songs are not automatically entitled to have standalone articles just because they exist, but must have an actual notability claim and reliable source coverage that singles the songs out for dedicated attention. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NSONGs and GNG. One article has four sources, which may be enough for GNG, but the sources are really covering the album Strange Prison which already covers the two songs. That article may itself be a candidate for merging. No useful info in these to merge, totally implausible redirects. These song articles and the album article are really just bits from Astral Swans and are (pretty much) a walled garden. Strange Prison for example is linked from these three songs, Astral Swans, another album by Astral, 2018 in Canadian music and the producer's article. Controls is linked from Strange prison, Astral Swan, and the producer. Maybe Leave an entry at the Control dab linking to Astral Swans. Hydromania (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments of WP:NEXIST are valid and not to be discarded lightly for subjects released before most sources were available online but even if there was no sufficient coverage to support a full article, nominator failed to explain why a merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks (to be discussed at WP:Proposed mergers if necessary) is not a valid option (WP:ATD). Regards SoWhy 09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faiths and Pantheons

Faiths and Pantheons (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)

Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification since 2016, and the Reception and Reviews sections have been empty since 2012. No secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed the reception section as an unnecessary section/hurdle. I added one review of the book. I will update as time permits. D&D related AfDs are popping up daily. I find this notable and it is a service to our readers that it remains. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightburst or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Odds are good that there are additional sources for this in the print periodicals for the industry, as almost all significant sourcebooks were reviewed by at least several of the titles. Not all of that material is online or easily searchable. I'm working on compiling it right now, actually. I get that there's a lot of stuff in the D&D topic space that probably does need to go, but in general, the area suffers from having had articles created relatively early on, but no one willing to do the heavy lifting to bring them up to modern project policy compliance. If I'm wrong, well, when I get to 3.5 sourcebooks on my cleanup crusade, I'll be the first one merging or redirecting it somewhere better. But that doesn't make deletion helpful right now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that's been added since the AfD was started was a non-RS review and a link to the game's company product page. If you can provide some places where it may have been reviewed offline that would be significantly helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a world where I could conjure copies of anything at will to check for sources? My first three places to look for this one would probably be Pyramid, KoDT Magazine, and Game Trade Monthly. The time period around this title's release (3rd edition D&D, pre-3.5, in general...) admittedly makes sourcing more challenging. There's a gap in easily-accessible sources after the first wave of tabletop periodicals folded or shifted focus (with a solid candidate for the end date of that period being the 1998 death of Shadis), but before reliable internet reporting and more modern titles like the UK-published Tabletop Gaming (beginning in 2006). Worst case, a redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks would be helpful to preserve at least the skeleton of content in history, should further source reviews be more productive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as a followup, other places I'd like to look are Games Review (although I'm not sure that was still in-print in time for this release), the German Mephisto (although they didn't do as much D&D coverage as other RPGs), and the French Casus Belli. Random RPG product reviews sometimes show up in broader gaming magazines or wargaming magazines, too, so there's a huge universe to check. I know, I know, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a good argument to make. It's just frustrating, because I'm trying to claw back against the tide of over a decade of, effectively, deferred maintenance in this topic space, and there's an awful lot that needs done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page suggests there may have been one review and another one in a German magazine?: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/45578/faiths-and-pantheons BOZ (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The German one there is Anduin, which began as more or less a fanzine, but continued for a very long time, such that, when it finally closed, it might very well have been the longest-running German gaming magazine. We can have joyous debates, I'm sure, about whether it should be considered a reliable source (my take: the first series, probably not; later issues, likely okay with caution). Naturally, Anduin is now defunct and its archives offline, but I should be able to check on this one all the same [EDIT: And I have a copy of that now, it's a page-and-a-half review of the book, which makes my poor German skills cry]. I'm not at all familiar with that other source, so give me a little bit on it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added review content from Anduin and the e-magazine Fictional Reality (which, please note, is unrelated to the current Fictional Reality website; sadly, I don't have publicly linkable archives for either of these). I suspect that there are other sources. This book got several foreign-language releases, and I'd bet a shiny quarter that there's a French review out there somewhere, probably either in Casus Belli or JDR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ugh, what a mess. A discussion that included accusations of canvassing, which was then somewhat questionably closed as delete, then the deletion reversed without a deletion review, then renominated by a since-banned editor. The editors commenting still have strong disagreements about whether the sources show significant coverage, and the procedural issues noticeably contaminate the discussion. Finding a consensus in this would either be a miracle or a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I don't have faith in either. I'm closing this as no consensus and would strongly encourage the editors involved to leave this one alone for a few months. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Mongillo

AfDs for this article:
Casey Mongillo (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)


So, it would appear that another admin (User:Lord Roem) has undone the deletion using one of his admin tools without consensus. I would love to see solid evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:WHYN. I'm repeating my previous arguments. I'm ready for Round 2. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) - User has been site banned by Arbcom[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The notability standard for voice actors is set out in WP:ENT, which requires that they had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," in this case, the productions being dubbed content. The question is then not whether the subject of the article necessarily has a slew of news articles about them, but rather if there are sources for their involvement in "significant" roles. First and foremost, they held the lead dub role for Neon Genesis Evangelion, a major title in the anime and dubbing space. There's a Vice article exclusively about their performance, an article from TV Guide which praises the performance's emotional tone, and a Forbes opinion piece all of which takes place in the context of a controversy regarding a dispute of queer erasure from the show (Vox article) and Slate article). In addition to this lead role in a single production, they were a major secondary character in Mob Psycho 100, also a significant anime title, Kirisame in B the Beginning, a title distributed by Netflix, were a major character in the Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir, and were in a large array of game titles, like Octopath Traveler, and Red Dead Redemption. Against the context of voice actors as a lesser-known role within production environments, this kind of coverage and diversity of lead and secondary roles, covered in reliable secondary sources, is more than enough to support inclusion of this article. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::A few mentions isn't WP:GNG. The only extensive coverage I see here is the Vice article. All these sources have been analyzed before, yet the subject's article is still mostly WP:SELFPUB tweets. That's not notability. I only see one major role, and that is Shinji Ikari, in a redub that is significantly drawfed by the siginficance of the original English dub with Spike Spencer (who has continued to reprise the role in the Rebuild films). Where's the coverge for the rest of the subject's roles? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard. The question is whether they held "significant roles" in "multiple productions," which is undeniable. There is no need for there to be an article analyzing their performance every time. The SIGCOV guideline is intended to ensure we aren't limited to fleeting information about a person, which isn't a concern here. The other titles I've listed, in addition to the major game releases--Red Dead Redemption as one critical example--makes your argument rather hollow. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::Isn't the subject's role in Red Dead Redemption just a minor role? How is this notable? How does the subject meet WP:ENT? I'm genuinely curious. An actor could have a bunch of roles, but if there are no reviews and no coverage, how do we know for certain that it's notable? Just getting cast and putting them on a resume isn't my understanding of notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I feel like I'm repeating myself. This isn't a case of an amateur voice actor who's had a single role and nothing else- the subject is prolific. Red Dead Redemption, Mob Psycho 100, Ladybug & Cat Noir, B the Beginning, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. There's no numerical threshold in WP:ENT, but whatever it may be, I see no strong argument for why this doesn't surpass it easily. On top of that, there is significant coverage: Vice, TV Guide, Forbes. Now, if you think the standard is too easy to clear (which I would disagree with), you're more than welcome to open an RfC on changing it. But as WP:ENT stands, the subject of this article hits those criteria. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Brief mentions isn't WP:SIGCOV. All the articles *but* Vice had no significant coverage. But it's clear that you don't agree with me on this, so we'll let everyone else decide that. As for WP:ENT, that's debatable. You keep saying that the subject has appeared in those aforementioned works, but you did not specify if they are major, supporting or minor roles. You only mentioned them as "significant" titles on their own. Is that supposed to be a notability argument? Cuz I'm not really convinced..... We'll see. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sho from Mob Psycho is a lead secondary character, so much so they were included in a Q&A with the dub producers (Crunchyroll source here). Sandboy from Cat Noir is a secondary character who appeared in multiple episodes. Kirisame in B the Beginning as well, and it goes on. I agree that someone doing walla, even were it a major show, would not be notable, nor someone who was the lead in an indie title that has no coverage anywhere. But that's not what we're dealing with here. Three sources about their performance hit the SIGCOV bar--which isn't what's important anyway for an entertainer. So far, there's been no direct response beyond "eh, not enough," with no real argument or analysis. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::And I could argue the same about your disregard of WP:SIGCOV: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. You say it isn't important, but it really is. As for WP:ENT, it's debatable whether Shinji *and* Sho is enough to establish notability. The rest of the characters you've listed seem to be mere secondary characters. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability guideline says squarely it can either fulfill the general criteria, or the more specific laid out for individual categories. I struggle to see how a voice actor covered by Vice, TV Guide, Slate, and Crunchyroll, who's had at least three major roles, doesn't meet WP:ENT. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability and siginificance of these other roles are up for debate. We'll soon see if your claims are truly founded with the other users. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Roem: - Why didn't you just take this to WP:DRV rather than undo a deletion discussion closed by consensus? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth noting that the Forbes article is contributor article and thus is unreliable per WP:RSP.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AFD just closed for this, and somehow its back again. If there was a problem why not just reopen and relist the previous AFD? The person clearly meets the subject specific guideline for voice actors. Dream Focus 03:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Makes no sense to relist the previous AFD if it had been already closed. I'm a bit annoyed that I had to start up a new AFD just because another admin decided to undelete the page and stuff it with pretty much the same sources, and defines it as "notable"...... We'll see how this goes. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have WP:DRV for these things, restoring a page that was deleted per consensus can be considered disruptive as the undoing is controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete This seems to be a repeat of the last AFD that had basically decided delete, there also seems to be very little additional work that really adds to the article. Many of these sources are piecemeal, small mentions, and virtually no coverage among the anime reliable sources. Almost no major roles aside from Shinji. There is a little bit of WP:TOOSOON here. Esw01407 (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No major roles outside of Shinji? I've discussed this more in depth above, but there's the major secondary role in Mob Psycho, B the Beginning, among others. It's very rare for a voice actor to be covered at all, but the present subject has 3 articles appraising their performance. That's significant coverage and significant roles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many many minor roles don't make an actor notable. Vox and Forbs pieces are one line statements virtually, with the Forbes one being much better if it had to be used. IF there was something from Anime News Network or better in the anime community, it would add more weight to the sources argument. The TV Guide piece I can't even place weight on, I'd have to look further into the writers work. Esw01407 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but these aren't minor roles, and I think it'd be bizarre to say you have to be the lead for it to be notable, and that's by no means supported by the terms of WP:ENT. Sho Suzuki from Mob Psycho, the role in B the Beginning, the role in Gundam SEED are all there. These aren't bit parts. Edit: Here's an article from Anime News Network on the Gundam dub, if you want an ANN source. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::::The Seed redub isn't even out yet. It's hard to determine how notable it'll be. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly a bit puzzled at your fervent desire to delete this article... but I also don't see that as persuasive. If an actor was announced in a major title, say, Dragon Ball Z, or a Pokemon title, that's clearly notable. The question isn't "will the voice actor get covered when the game comes out," but rather, "is the role itself notable" under the terms of ENT. Gundam, like Evangelion and Mob Psycho, is clearly a major series. Edit: Plus, it has been covered already, see the ANN source in my note above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Says the one that restored the article with barely any improvements...... I'd leave the article alone if there were major improvements. But that's not what I am seeing here. And it would appear that your perspective on WP:ENT and WP:SIGCOV isn't shared by some of the other users here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Striking because I don't want to be part of this -- not because this shouldn't be deleted. - oh come on now. we were just here and nothing has changed (so per what I wrote there, etc., and upgrading from weak delete to delete because we shouldn't be here). Assuming the previous AfD result is still in effect, this should qualify for CSD or else go to DRV. If the "but I don't agree / I wanted to !vote" argument on the closer's talk page were successful, that should've resulted in a different close, not just throwing that AfD, and the time which went into it, out the window. Passing WP:ENT as that guideline says, indicates someone may be notable, but "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Major roles often results in significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, but it's not a guarantee, nor is it a substitute for them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the Vice, Forbes, and TV Guide sources which--rather uniquely for a dub performance--discuss the specifics of this subject's role. These are all reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the Forbes piece is a "contributor" article (RSP entry): like HuffPo, Forbes hosts user-generated content with minimal editorial oversight through their "contributor" blogging platform, in addition to their generally higher quality articles by paid staff writers. Cheers, gnu57 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the same about them as I did a couple weeks ago. There are no new sources here. There's one that's pretty good (Vice), one with a single paragraph (TV Guide), and brief mentions. I don't plan to participate in this AfD further. "hey, you closed as delete. I want to say the same thing the other keep !voters said, based on the same sources covered in the AfD" should not result in "ok, let's pretend that the AfD that just happened, suffered canvassing, and still ended in delete, doesn't exist and make everyone do it over again so you can participate this time". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is WP:TENDENTIOUS and seems to target voice actor's for deletion. In any event this voice actor passes the subject specific guidelines. Actors are known for their work, not their ability to generate press for DUIs and nonsense the article has RSs. The subject must pass either SNG or GNG. I would caution the nominator against this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Saying I'm ready for Round 2. Sounds like a prize fight. This should be a dispassionate discussion. In addition the nominator is known for repeatedly placing AfDs on the same article until they get a delete result. The nom even kept a hit list bragging about deletions (one took four AfDs). WP:DISRUPTIVE In any event this is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::K. Linking a list I made in 2017 proves what, exactly? You seem to dislike my AFDs (and me) a lot. Why do you keep participating in them, then? Can't be good for your health, I'd imagine. Plenty of editors nom VA articles for deletion. And that's bad, because...? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Between that and what I read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive and the rest, I think this is just one editor obsessed with deleting all voice actor articles no matter what it takes. Dream Focus 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT - The mentions as decided by a prior consensus "are all either drive-by mentions, self-published blogs with no editorial oversight or the subject's own websites". The nominator's stance on the matter isn't going to bring the subject notability here based on the arguments presented at the last AfD. I would have added for speedy deletion under WP:G4. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding speedy deletion, Roem took it up with Eumerus (the deleting admin) to get it back up, and Eumerus approved. The person who requested the Speedy Deletion was the nominator, very quickly after the page’s admin-approved recreation. I’d just like to note that Eumerus stated “someone else” in regards to seeing if it’d get AFD’d, and this is the same person who AFD’d it the first time. Sure, the nominator’s stance isn’t going to change notability. But the nominator’s stance should be taken into account in regards to why this discussion’s even happening in the first place. Simply put, VA favoritism and vitriolic transphobia do not a proper reason to delete make. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but WP:BLP policy is strictly followed here on Wikipedia. A poorly sourced BLP helps nobody and can actually be considered damaging in some cases. What bothers me is how a prior consensus was disregarded by two editors rather than taken to a proper venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rab V, what is the second major role for Mongillo, and the sources to back this up? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see several sources talking about the character from Mob Psycho, here are some examples. Rab V (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and send to DRV proper what's the point in having a consensus to delete, followed by a lack of deleting the article, and then no proper WP:DRV review to reverse it? And then a supposed CSD that gets declined isn't even logged? Nothing has changed in the status of this article besides WP:CANVASSING from other voice actors on Twitter. No NEW news articles have been presented to add to the notability of the actor, and no new major roles have been added to help the notability of the actor. So how is this person going to meet WP:ENT besides that they are shouted about in social media? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over Casey's roles again:
  • Evangelion, yes, definitely major, RS
  • Mob Psycho 100: maybe secondary, maybe supporting, but not covered in any notable news articles, only passing mention
  • B The Beginning, Kirisame is an episodic character, not listed in main
  • Miraculous Ladybug, not in starring voice cast, guest spots only
  • Octopath Traveler, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
  • Red Dead Redemption, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
I'm looking for anything similar to Evangelion in coverage but for that second role, then this can be revisited. But otherwise Casey's WP:TOOSOON n roles and not enough to meet WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a CSD G4 which was declined / contested, so now this can proceed as an AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as WP:TRAINWRECK or WP:CLUSTERF**K, pardon my language. No one wants to follow procedures here. Recommend leaving a tag for notability in the meantime until issues can be cleared up. Person is borderline notable with second titles and references towards WP:ENT being possible, but not in its current state. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to this, Mob Psycho 100 season 1 dated 2016, Casey is not listed as voicing a main character [34] [35] [36] Are there articles for season 2 dated 2019 that show otherwise? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This article from Crunchyroll includes Casey's character as one of the leads who are participating in a Q&A about the dub. Obviously, Crunchyroll produced the dub, so I wouldn't say this is an incredibly strong source, but as for whether their role in Mob Psycho is significant, I think this points to yes. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comicbook.com does not list Casey as Sho in the season 2 cast listing posted April 2019. [37] According to the Japanese anime website, it appears that Sho Suzuki (鈴木将) was listed among the 17 characters in season 2. [38] The wayback for the season 1 anime official website in 2016 does not list Sho there. [39] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Firstly, I will break down the sources in terms of established notability. A significant portion of the sources provided are from social media sites like Twitter and Instagram and thus these parts establish zero notability (or reliability for that matter). Also the Linkedin source provides zero notability. The Forbes article provides some small coverage but is a contributor article and hence is unreliable per WP:RSP, The Vox article is a one sentence mention, The Slate article is a mention, The TV guide article is a small paragraph, The Vice article has a decent portion establishing some notability, The Huffpost article also has a decent portion but it is by Huffpost contributor and hence is deemed as an unreliable source per WP:RSP. The Polygon article has a tiny mention of the person's name. The rest of the sources provided are either social media sites or other unreliable sources which establish no notability. Hence fails to satisify WP:GNG.
Secondly, the article fails WP:ENT as demonstrated superbly by AngusWOOF's explanation:
Looking over Casey's roles again: Evangelion, yes, definitely major, RS; Mob Psycho 100: maybe secondary, maybe supporting, but not covered in any notable news articles, only passing mention; B The Beginning, Kirisame is an episodic character, not listed in main; Miraculous Ladybug, not in starring voice cast, guest spots only;Octopath Traveler, not shown how Casey has a major role there;Red Dead Redemption, not shown how Casey has a major role there.
Thus Casey Mongillo does not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and does clearly fails WP:ENT.
Finally, the plethora of unreliable sources used throughout this article like Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Huffpost contributor, Forbes contributor violates WP:BLP as it is a biography on a living person and must be verifable and well sourced as seen WP:BLPRS.
Since this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT and violates WP:BLPRS Mongillo does not warrant a dedicated article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment (in relation to my !vote) If you still disagree about whether Mongillo has "significant roles" per WP:ENT (as there is some discussion about what is meant by significant roles) it is worth noting that if Mongillo has had signficant roles Mongillo would have significant coverage from reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV) which Mongillo clearly does not to have as per my explanation above (which was pointed out by Yosemiter)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)x3 Struck my delete !vote above. I want no part of this. I stand by everything I've said thus far about this article and the process that led to its recreation, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help carry out some kind of transphobic grudge. I don't know what of the above links should be removed for outing, but I've sent some information to arbcom. Given how problematic this is either on the outing level or concerning the content of the links, I think this is best handled by them (as long as they can do so in a timely manner). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't disagreed with that. I said "I stand by everything I've said thus far about this article and the process that led to its recreation." I'm just not willing to participate. If that means we keep a little-bit-short-of-notable biography, I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with calling off this second AfD and letting the first result stand, as it should have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see a local consensus here as no new sources were added that aren't passing mentions. A lot of the Keep opinions here are going after the nominator rather than discussing the weight of the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any local consensus. There are editors who have jumped on after the previous AFD resulted in a close to try to defend keeping the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me I am familiar with it. The page was recreated and an administrator allowed it. It does not seem like a federal case to me. After all a nominator can repeatedly nominate for deletion, so recreating an article seems innocuous enough.So here we are. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is an issue as it was done out of process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's been filed many times. I apologize for throwing in the extra one from today (4 November 2019). Hopefully, my reorg of those threads on the talk page, as well as the oldcsd post, helps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no question that Mongillo exists and is a working actor, but I can't find how there is significant coverage of them to sustain an article. The only really strong source is the Vice article. Most of the rest of the article's sources are references to social media pages (Instagram and Twitter for the most part) and not third party primary sources. The other non-social media sources are really just ancillary mentions of the actor in articles that are really about other things (e.g. their main role in Evangelion). I think a lot of the arguments for keep have some merit, but I can't get over the SIGCOV hurdle. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/38.142.216.106 FWIW, this new account is essentially a WP:SPA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: How so? IPs shift all the time, and in the last few weeks that IP has made edits to a wide range of areas on the encyclopedia. No reason to assume it was canvassed somewhere else to come to this AFD. Unlike, say, this account that has made a total of 30 edits over several years, and in the last few days reemerged to attack Sk8erPrince on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it looks pretty desperate when a half-dozen SPAs have shown up and either !voted "keep" or harassed one or more "delete" !voters (truth be told I didn't read them before they were revdelled, so I don't know), and then for two of the non-SPA "keep" !voters to tag an IP that is neither single-purpose nor an account as an SPA. There's no need to be "fair and balanced" in our SPA-tagging to the point where we have to go looking for "delete" !voters that, if we squint and try really hard, kinda-sorta look like SPAs. In all seriousness, though, the problem is not so much that it looks desperate as that it's guilty parties trying to place the blame for the disruption on the other "side" -- WP:KETTLE and possible WP:IDHT are serious issues here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From reading the above:
1. Spy-cicle is closest to the full "schoolbook solution" here - only one real RS that comes close to full WP:BLPRS WP:SIGCOV, which is from Vice; no other RS comes close to this level, and it is borderline as to whether the BLP has been in significant roles in multiple notable films, per WP:ENT (plus WP:ENT is not in itself sufficient).
2. WP:BASIC says that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability; so Vice plus the other refs could, but not would, be construed to add up to a notability.
3. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a precise and skilled admin XFD closer, who, as per the 1st AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo, is not afraid to ignore all !votes that are not themselves precise in their policy-based arguments, however, their release of the AfD outside of DRV to Lord Roem – which is permitted – shows that there was still a case to be argued here.
Ultimately, there still is a borderline element to all three of the above points, and the subject's "big break", Neon Genesis Evangelion, is a 2019 event, with a strong hint from Vice and other RS that this was a meaningful event in the community this BLP represents. Thus, unless Jo-Jo Eumerus believes their original decision stands, I believe a fair outcome is no consensus – let this BLP sit for another 12 months and see what happens in their rapidly developing career. No harm will come to WP, or our readers, in the meantime. Britishfinance (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Jo-Jo Eumerus has said on the related ANI case to this AfD, that they will NOT be closing this 2nd AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do agree that a closure for the first AfD of "No Consensus" would've made more sense. Based on the discussion above, there's clearly a very significant divide on the issue, but certainly no consensus to delete, with a solid argument for why it should be kept.
I think, fundamentally, my concern has always been that voice actors as a segment of entertainment rarely ever get coverage, so we're unduly setting the bar high, if the requirement is there be a news article about *every single role* for it to be included. Casey, rather uniquely, has major coverage about their performance. No other voice actor has such coverage, which is why I'm genuinely disappointed to see that context missing from folks' consideration-- i.e., that the coverage Casey has is notable in and of itself. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem, the "rarely ever get coverage" was the situation years ago, but voice actors now do and are expected to get significant coverage in sources, including ones outside the anime industry. The bar is set to be the same as any other live-action actor, which means more than just passing mention in credits, cast announcements, and self-published tweets/conventions. Once the person is notable, THEN they can have primary source credits added to their filmographies, provided the primaries don't overwhelm the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my confusion comes from the reading of ENT, which suggests it's not the sourcing, it's the roles, as in, if Casey is cast as the lead villain in, say, Demon Slayer, whether or not there's a review out there about their performance, wouldn't that be a substantial role in a major production? Or, are you saying, for it to 'count,' it not only has to be a key role, but there must be an article mentioning them by name, and discussing their performance? If the latter, that's the part I'm having difficulty with. I totally get VAs today do get more press than two decades ago, but how often are their performances appraised like the Vice article? Usually, it's a brief mention, and often about the ensemble together, with only a single line or two about them, like this ANN review that mentioned the lead with two sentences. This leads to a weird outcome, where a voice actor who got coverage about their performance in one of the largest anime titles of all time still doesn't hit the bar. I hope you can at least empathize with my concern here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem, that's why I was asking about Mob Psycho 100 season 2, since season 1, the character of Shou is not listed at all among the 5-10 main characters that they bothered to have cast announcements for. If Demon Slayer lists Casey's role among that main cast in such a comparable list, then yes, consider. Also keep in mind, Casey is taking over a well-known character role; and the press coverage is much like how Erica Lindbeck took over Kelly Sheridan's role as the voice of Barbie (of which Lindbeck had a bunch of mainstream news and magazine articles about the change, although for Barbie's case it will be for a number of years and not just a single series), or how the Sailor Moon voice actors changed over recasting. With more mainstream media coverage, perhaps Casey will meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E instead of WP:ENT, and the point becomes moot over discussing the latter? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point. Would not this cast announcement for the Gundum dub, the Mob Psycho S2 Q&A announcement, and NGE stand as three major roles? Even if Mob Psycho is discounted because the announcement is more implicit (i.e., it's saying "here are folks doing the Q&A" instead of the S2 cast), why isn't two roles enough? Just for my own understanding, how many do you believe are required under ENT to hit that bar? Three roles? Four roles? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, "multiple" = 2 (I used to have a link to a major AfD case re this, but I just can't find it; perhaps someone can supply). Britishfinance (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least by my understanding and other AFD's, WP:ENT is the "last resort" for getting/having an entertainer on Wiki, and even then they would have to have many major roles, but somehow have had no major press. Best example I could give would be if somehow Todd Haberkorn in the Anime voice acting community didn't have sources. Esw01407 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, try these essays WP:3REFS which asks how many minimum is good enough for multiple, and WP:THREE when you have to decide among listings of tens of sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AngusWOOF, I am aware of the 3REFS essay (which itself recognizes two may suffice), however, I have seen editors paste in an essay on why, regardless of 3REFS, two is the technical hurdle (it was in response to editors invoking 3REFs). Obviously, all of these are just guidelines, and consensus/WP:COMMONSENSE re RS will usually prevail, but now I have remembered it, I would love to find it again :(. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Multiple sources is an essay written by a single user. Not sure why its in main space. I have edited it to have the proper tag at the top. You only need two, that's how its always been, why some keep pointing to essays someone tossed up and claiming its three I have no idea. We go by the Notability guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY not personal essays. Dream Focus 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For non-essays see WP:ONESOURCE and WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ONESOURCE clearly states at the top its just an essay. That's three different personal essays people made just to try to convince people to ignore the guidelines and do things their way. We go by WP:NOTABILITY which states an article is notable if it meets the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines. Dream Focus 16:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let's just get back to WP:BASIC then, whch ISN'T an essay. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" I'm gonna add that WP:ENT is grouped under the Additional criteria which states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Potential procedural issues aside, the Vice article and TV Guide Review seems to collectively meet WP:GNG. The latter is more of a borderline case for being significant coverage, but a 5-sentence paragraph dedicated solely to review the subject's performance seems significant enough for the criterion of "addresses the topic directly and in detail". — MarkH21 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject discussed in detail in at least two of the independent sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator unnecessarily attacks a user, for recreating the article, despite that was the advice and direction of the Admin who closed the previous AFD. A little unusual, but that is the closing Admin's perogrative, and shouldn't be relevant to this AFD process. There are (at least) two GNG references that several have noted - so keep. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, take it to DRV All the disruption by editors (and possible off-wiki commentators and.or impersonators) on one or another "side" of this dispute, the original undeletion, whereby an admin who has now cast a keep !vote in this second discussion went to the talk page of the closing admin and got them to say that a "no consensus -- default to keep" result might not have been entirely inappropriate, then undeleted the page themselves, is a procedural nightmare and sets a dangerous precedent. The fact that some editors who !voted in the previous discussion and were overruled by the close are now arguing that the default state is "keep" and that Sk8erPrince is behaving disruptively by "repeatedly nominating the same article against consensus", and that at least one of the above keep !votes came here from ANI after disputing with the nominator on an unrelated issue, is evidence enough that this discussion has been tainted by bad faith and should be allowed go through the normal procedures rather than allowing editors with a particular viewpoint to distort the discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to procedural speedy delete. Much of my involvement in this discussion and the related ANI thread was motivated by what appeared to me to be a joe-job and harassment campaign directed against the AFD nominator, who appeared to be acting in good-faith, and certainly on-wiki received a lot of "this person nominated an article for deletion -- therefore he is wrong all the time" backlash before the page was undeleted. However, said user has since been indeffed by ArbCom. Without speculating in public as to the reason for this, I can only assume I have been hoodwinked into defending someone who did not deserved my defense or even good will. Egg on my face, I guess. That being said, there are hundreds of possible reasons he could have been blocked, and only one (he was a sock of someone who was site-banned before the initial AFD) would be a valid reason for not re-deleting this page and forcing it to go through the normal procedures, in my opinion. So please consider all my advocacy of Sk8erPrince to be retracted, but until proven otherwise I think there is no reason to make an exception to our normal procedures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be a procedural speedy keep, with no prejudice against a 3rd AFD, given that the nominator was banned for off-Site comments, after other users raised concerns about off-Site comments against the subject of this article? Nfitz (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, the page was previously deleted per community consensus. The default state is delete pending consensus to do otherwise. The fact that the original AFD nominator was blocked almost three weeks later does nothing to change that. Also, please refrain from speculating as to why the editor was banned; ArbCom has spoken, and until they choose to say more you and I really shouldn't be talking about "off-Site comments". The only off-site comments that would be relevant when it comes to whether to invalidate the previous AFD result would be canvassing, and the only canvassing seems to have been for "keep" !votes, given that all the SPAs seemed to be !voting that way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the collective community time, and !votes, on this 2nd AfD, regardless of the motivation of the nom, we should complete it properly? (and I still believe that it is a No Consensus AfD, with a leaning emerging bias to Keep, imho) Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Please stop interrogating me. I've already made clear that I've said my piece and am now washing my hands of this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) For the love of god, stop editing your comment! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hijiri88 - I concur with your suggestion. This whole thing was messier than it needed to be, and I think the admin who eventually closes this will have a lot to untangle. In the end, I suspect that whatever decision is reached will be challenged by someone or another. Setting aside the drama about the nominator, there seems to be a genuinely complex dispute about how to apply the notability guidelines for voice actors. As I said earlier (before I was accused of being a SPA), there seems to be a compelling argument that the coverage of Mongillo's role in Evangelion is significant enough to qualify under GNG, even though - like a lot of VAs - there aren't that many other reliable articles about Mongillo outside of this. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point coming out of this, there might have be a wider discussion about voice actors notability. One of my issues is with how WP:ENT is being applied here, I've never seen it used this way on a rather unknown voice actor. Esw01407 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet, if barely, the established standards for voice actors in WP:ENT. Parabolist (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the last AfD, I dithered, because Mongillo seems like they're on the edge of notability. I'm still dithering. I ultimately voted "merge" last time, but currently I'd like to be considered neutral. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable with how often the article currently cites its subject (whose twitter is cited nine times, and whose website and linkedin are also cited, with other citations going to Facebook and Instagram), but that is a cleanup issue, since discounting those cites still leaves several good sources, including the TV Guide article (a good source according to WP:RSPS) and the Vice article, both regarding Evangelion, and the dedicated HuffPost interview dealing with Red Dead Redemption; there is also the coverage of the Mob Psycho 100 work in Crunchyroll (a marginal source which I found only one short, years-old RSN discussion of). (The mentions in Vox and Slate are probably too brief to contribute much towards establishing notability.) It's a weak keep, in my view. -sche (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-sche, self-published Tweets and social media for announcing voice roles are pretty typical for voice actors these days. Yes, I would ignore all of those for purposes of evaluating notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I'm aware of, Spy-cicle is the one who outlined the significance of the subject's roles the most accurately. Simply having reliable sources does not accredit you for holding notability. Is the Mob Psycho 100 role a significant one or no? If not, then the article could have a thousand sources but still only one significant role in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Utopes (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, it's borderline. Shou was one of 7 characters added to the character listing (was about 10 characters in season 1, now 17 as of season 2) of the anime. That Shou wasn't mentioned on the Comicbook.com cast for season 2 implies minor, but they did have a Reddit event where Casey was one of the featured panelists, so maybe major. The show itself Mob Psycho 100 anime English version is significant since it broadcast on Adult Swim as opposed to just going straight-to-video / subscription stream as with other anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Idk how valid using Wikipedia articles as a source in wiki-related discussion is, but on the MP100 Wikipedia page, Shou is listed as a main character. No idea how much merit that has here, but reading up on the material in question is prolly useful, i guess. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue that since WP:ENT does not supersede WP:GNG, then "significant roles" would imply roles in which the actor garnered independent significant coverage. From what most people are listing as significant coverage in this AfD seems to be only about one role, which would seemingly no pass WP:SUSTAINED. I don't have a strong opinion here, but unless there is sigcov of another role, that seems against the intent of ENT (which is meant to be a presumption of meeting GNG if met). With the amount of back-and-forth here on "what is a significant role", it seems falling back on GNG is the most logical solution as opposed to the vagueness of ENT. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not going to !vote on this as I have little experience with anime dubs and voice actors, but I initially commented because the !votes are concerning around the subject of GNG. There also appears to be tendentious editing from both sides with various non-GNG related personal conflicts between editors, possible off-site canvassing, and accusations of dubious intentions.

      From what I see, the current summary is:

      1. Previously deleted via lack of support for GNG sources provided by keep voters. It seems many of the more significant depth sources were from non-RS contributor-written pieces, but most agreed the Vice article was good.

      2. Article properly recreate within weeks, but probably should have gone to DRV based on the contentious nature of the previous AfD in order to get a broader consent to change the closure to a no consensus. If the review had overturned the previous close, that would have saved an arbcom and several ANI discussions.

      3. At least 4 keep votes here are primarily aimed against the nominator and not about the article (but at least of two those editors also voted Keep in the first AfD, so it was probably just an expansion from their previous comments).

      4. At least 4 or 5 keep votes at least mention GNG, seemingly resting solely on the Vice and TV Guide articles. Both articles are about a single role, written within weeks of the dubbed show's release (see WP:SUSTAINED).

      5. At least 2 Keep votes solely on their interpretation of ENT. This should never supersede or act as a replacement for failing GNG.

      So based on the sources provided (really only the Vice and TV Guide article), I would argue weak delete as WP:TOOSOON or redirect to their one agreed upon notable role. The lack of sustained coverage has not put this subject past the light threshold of WP:ONEEVENT and we should not keep the article just because the actor is on the rise and might get more sources in the future. However, if this VA garners more attention for either for on-going coverage of the main notable role they have portrayed or for a new role they get, then I would have absolutely have no objection to re-creation of the article. Yosemiter (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • WP:NOTABILITY clearly states something is notable if it meets the GNG or a subject specific guideline, it doesn't have to do both. WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly met. And an administrator restored the article after talking to the administrator that deleted it. That's mentioned with a link to the talk page it happened at somewhere in the text above. Dream Focus 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dream Focus: I am well aware of all of that, hence my analysis (see #2 for my comments of the restoration). But you do need to review WP:ENT as a SNG, it is a sub-section of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which explicitly states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." While not all SNGs are subject to GNG (usually due to age of topics and difficulty in finding coverage), all sections of WP:BIO are subject to GNG per WP:BASIC. The fact that everyone here cannot even agree what a "significant role" even is in this case, is enough to say that ENT is insufficient here. So if ENT is inconclusive, go to GNG. My !vote was based off GNG. So unless you want to discuss significant coverage in RS sources, I have no further comment. Yosemiter (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Yosemiter: The subject’s RS sigcov is about one work, not one event, so WP:BLP1E does not really apply. There is also no requirement for sustained coverage per WP:NTEMP: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage (and WP:SUSTAINED only says sustained coverage may be an indicator). If the Vice and TV Guide articles (or any others) count as RS sigcov, then that should be enough regardless if they are about the same role. Otherwise, I agree with the preceding summary and GNG & ENT being independently sufficient. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @MarkH21: I am not solely judging based of BLP1E or BIO1E, just how it explains short-term-vs. long-term significance (similar to the thought experiment in WP:10YEARTEST). And just like any other guideline, SUSTAINED is just a generalization, not an automatic pass/fail. As all notability guidelines are just that, guidelines, they are inherently open to interpretation and subjectivity. I see one thorough article and one paragraph about one role in a short period of time and not much further in RS. If one other role had a few paragraphs in RS, or another RS comes back on the same role to show lasting significance, then I would switch to weak keep. But, that is not what I am seeing right now from the sources provided. I have no qualms if another editor sees those two sources differently than I do. Yosemiter (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon P. Ziolkowski

Vernon P. Ziolkowski (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:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The claim of "substantial impact" (NACADEMIC #1) is made in footnote 7. I have access to the Cohen source and the two Drews sources, none of which claim "substantial impact" but simply cite his dissertation as primary source material, and our own article on Isidore of Seville only cites him as bibliographic, primary source material. It seems his only publication is his dissertation. He seems to fail the "Average professor" test for classicists or even the more narrow "medieval spanish latinists". Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I have made some minor edits to this article, and have it watchlisted, but would likely not have created it myself and am abstaining because he was one of my teachers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein: Thanks for your comment and I can appreciate the conflict. It's clear from the article that Ziolkowski was well regarded in the community. I already dislike making AFD nominations, and it's even less fun when it's articles that document something important to a local community. Who knows, maybe someone has access to a few local papers that did substantial coverage of him that could satisfy GNG. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete earning a real doctorate is not a sign of notability, and that is basically the strongest claim to fame we have here. Being a high school Latin teacher is even less of a claim, short of actually indepth coverage of his teaching (which is a rare thing for anyone).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just some guy.Dreamwoven (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Generations

Transformers: Generations (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 article, simply treated as a catalogue of toys. TTN (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of these have their own articles still? Is there a bot that counts how many links an article has that aren't redirects? If enough valid links remain, then this can simply be renamed List of Transformer Generation characters. Lists of Transformers characters shows a lot of list exist. Can a single list be made listing all of them with columns listing what toy line, cartoon series, etc, they were in? Dream Focus 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTCATALOG. It is not a list of characters per se, but a list of toys that happens to link to the characters.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply a catalogue of toys; providing lists of released toys sorted by class/line/movie/whatever should be Hasbro's job, not Wikipedia's. Checking the sources in the article, it's obvious that TFW2005 is a fansite and OAFE is a blog. Those make 20/25 links. Then there's Hasbro (not independent) and more blogs - none of this counts towards notability. I could not find better sources to cover the topic so I'd say it fails GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mix.com

Mix.com (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 how this can possibly pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable website/platform failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. None of the sources in the article come close to WP:GNG requirements. Some are primary, some are tiny mention, some are just directory/stat entries. None of the content is attributable to secondary sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As above, none of the sources in the article are sufficient for GNG - the only ones which give any serious discussion of the website are written by one of its founders. My own research turned up this and this (along with a few blog results). The first looks like it might be a reliable source and it does discuss the website in reasonable detail; the latter is not much more than a news release. A few more sources like the first one I linked would be sufficient but all I can find is that one. This may well become notable in the future, but it isn't yet. WJ94 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore (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:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not prima facie notable unless there is sourcing showing otherwise, and as such a list of local politicians in a specific locality are also not presumed notable. In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find any instances of significant coverage of the membership of Sopore Municipal Council either. Did consider speedy deletion via WP:A7 but AFD seemed the more certain way of going. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 31 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017 FK Trakai season

2017 FK Trakai season (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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career
  3. ^ https://chartmetric.io/
  4. ^ "We Recommend: FELIX AUSTRIA!". Austrian Information.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_4&oldid=924577150"