Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 November	27 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta Jain

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

Seem to have mere coverage, not enough to pass wp:nactor Rooptera (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rooptera (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:ENT. Andrew Base (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 27 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 10:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Sump

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

I proposed deletion back in 2011. My rationale then was "Non-notable comics character. No reliable sources cited." The template was removed and an encyclopedia of fictional characters was added in a references section (though not really cited). Eight years later, Piotrus proposed deletion again, writing " Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION." Though I agree that the article should be deleted, it is not eligible for proposed deletion, so I bring it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that Otto Sump has been meaningfully discussed by any academic or journalistic sources. It is also telling that many of the Google Books results contained references to long-dead people who shared a name with this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. There does not appear to be enough coverage to support stand-alone notability. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent, real-world notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:21, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Akiniymika

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

The subject is a junior athlete, currently not meeting WP:NATH. Presented sources are passing mentions or mere database listings, not enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Google searches do not emit anything substantial. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind reading the notability criteria for sport entry again especially 2, 7 and Basic criteria in line with the content of the article and it's references? Danidamiobi (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the subject meeting either criteria. If you are indicating that she is meeting NATH then please demonstrate it below with keep!vote. Hitro talk 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a keep or a delete to decide whether a relist should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a clear-cut case. Youth who falls well short of the criteria. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not come close to meeting WP:NATH. According to a link in the aritcle, her current world ranking in the 200m is 320th. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Kelly

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:SOLDIER, unresolved issues since 2014 Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A second-level decoration and a third-level decoration are not enough to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelly passes WP:GNG because he is significantly covered in the US Army's official history of aeromedical evacuation in Vietnam [1] and an article by historian David T. Zabecki calls him the 'father of dustoff', a key part of the American experience in Vietnam. As the first Dustoff pilot killed in Vietnam, he was the subject of a lengthy profile by Peter Arnett. This article needs much improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Kges1901 (talk) 22:29, 27 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)} 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has his own entry in Spencer C. Tucker (20 May 2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History, 2nd Edition [4 volumes]: A Political, Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 564–. ISBN 978-1-85109-961-0.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage, as shown by sources mentioned above. He is also prominently mentioned at The Vietnam Center and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive, here at the American Legion page, here at an Army R&D source, plus several congressional resolutions. Easily meets WP:GNG, and as multiple sources refer to him as a pioneer of military medevac, meets WP:NSOLDIER criteria 6 as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelly passes WP:SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asko Murtomäki

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Finnish wiki bio is not longer and similarly not referenced at all. Can anyone find Finnish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 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) 07:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO/GNG. I can't find any sources for Murtomäki. Kacper IV (talk) 09:15, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Mari Lindberg

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

Just one line article. Sources are not that reliable. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Swedish wikipedia has more info in their article but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried to find more about her on the internet, nothing much that I can find. To me, this aritcle fails WP:BIO, her notability is in doubt. Swedish Wiki is also very short (stub level). Unless if anyone can improve it, my vote is Delete - Jay (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BiKi RoasTer

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

Non-notable. Has 216k subscribers on YouTube. Searching him on the news section of Google brings "8 results". There isn't anything about this YouTuber that is covered by any news source. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- G11. Delete per nom on AfD. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 as unambiguous advertising. SITH (talk) 12:53, 26 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) 07:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TransRomantic Films

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:CORP: the current sources are both award listings (#1 from AVN, #2 a sketchy press release on a porn blog). Pornography industry awards are a dime a dozen. I looked for additional sources and found only passing mentions/namedrops/trivial coverage, PR content, and an interview with the ~~company's founder~~ brand's director on a "pornography review" website: nothing to fulfill WP:GNG. Cheers, gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 06:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to Nica Noelle, unless someone can find out more what is going on with the company, like name change(s), being sold, etc. Not sure why that wasn’t first proposed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gleeanon409: It appears that TransRomantic Films isn't its own company, but rather one of four product lines that Noelle has directed for AEBN. What content do you think should be merged? The sourcing is terrible and the awards are insignificant; I'd be opposed to adding this material to the article for Noelle. Cheers, gnu57 07:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Genericusername57:, as there is very little, I would merge all of it. The sources could easily be improved with better ones, the awards go in its own section. The film itself probably should be talked about a bit more. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nica Noelle. Lack of sources on the company, redirecting and merging to founder is prudent. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Sufficiently obscure that a redirect is not needed. Nothing to merge, so it's a "delete" for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per K.e.coffman. --NL19931993 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with K.e.coffman. It fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH - Jay (talk) 05:40, 6 December 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)} 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Pécker

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Spanish wiki bio is longer but similarly not referenced much better. Can anyone find Spanish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion as it has been PRODed previously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NBIO/GNG. I don't see sources in Spanish. Kacper IV (talk) 09:13, 26 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. It looks like there are uncontested claims of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-City One

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

Very well written piece of fancruft about a fictional location. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. This type of content belongs on https://judgedredd.fandom.com/wiki/Mega-City_One PS. Great Cthulthu, help, I am suffering from fancruft overdose: Template:Judge_Dredd. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 26 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} 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ (Flip to Keep) - WP:NFICTION is a FAILED guide, which makes the reliance on it here odd. I can understand relying on an essay that might become a guideline in the future or is thought influential, but not on something that was rejected by the community ~~three~~ eight (!) times already.

This asides, at least this piece appears to treat this subject as notable though I think more are needed to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG (EDIT: maybe this one?). My instinct is that WP:GNG probably is met here as - other than Trantor - MegaCity One is one of the earliest instances of a fictional megapolis but the (very large) number of mentions in Judge Dredd-related works makes the search difficult, ~~so for the moment I am neutral~~. EDIT: Flip to keep - I think the two references cited above are just enough to get this over the line for notability, in that they discuss the impact of the subject on architecture/culture. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of FOARP's second suggested source, maybe this one instead: [2]. By the same person but not paywalled and focuses on MC1 instead of a list of ten locations, Richard75 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the major setting of a major comic book series, this is as notable as such articles as Gotham City. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Move Judge Dredd to Judge Dredd (character). Create page at Judge Dredd about the franchise/universe by splitting off Judge Dredd#Fictional universe and Judge Dredd#In other media and merge this into it as well as Judge (2000 AD)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that solution addresses the notability point, it just moves it to another article. However if others think it's viable then I'm not against it. Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's independently notable (and nobody in this discussion has linked anything demonstrating significant coverage), but as part of the Judge Dredd universe it has some mentions. And the universe itself should be more notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. I wouldn't be against a redirect to the proposed page above either. TTN (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forward by User:Necrothesp and the comment by User:FOARP. There's enough here to consider this notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's at least as notable as many other fictional places we have articles for. One source car has already been referred to above and there will be others which can be added to the article. Also, as discussed above, NFICTION isn't a policy or official guideline. The existence of other articles which may not be notable cannot affect or be relevant to the notability of this article. Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (links to a .pdf file) is here: http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/6093/ . Others: http://sparkarchitects.com/mega-city-one-shenzhen-pearl-river-delta/ https://www.filmcontact.com/news/south-africa/building-dredd’s-mega-city-one https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360814/14-814-future-cities-visual-history.pdf (.pdf file) Richard75 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the "keeps" above. Actually a very notable element of the Judge Dredd world, probably the most notable bar the main character himself. Good faith search for sources will find them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:57, 2 December 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) 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holds of Pern

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

Fictional location. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Pure WP:PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. AfD few years back was closed as keep with no prejudice to merge. Not sure what to merge, as almost nothing is referenced. And why keep, if it fails notability policies? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 26 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} 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. No shred of analysis. Kacper IV (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fancruft, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, trivial minutia. TTN (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Arguments in favor of keep relied on past AfDs and the improvement since, but this has little bearing for this AfD, which concerns the current (and projected future) state of this article. Despite some secondary sources, the article still largely fails PLOT, and consensus leaned towards that this topic shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Merge seems to be the best option under these circumstances. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenor Battlehammer

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

Fictional character. The entry is long, and that's about all that it has going for it - pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails NFICTION/GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 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} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article passed the previous AFD unanimously, and then subsequently passed a related deletion review sponspored by the original nominator, also unanimously. It has been substantially modified since then to improve the referencing and reduce the in-world/ploy synopsis issues. This nomination is part of a series of nominations for deletion of fictional characters/elements by a single editor, who, by their own admission, is "suffering from fancruft overdose" (see WP:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One); and WP:FANCRUFT does not qualify as a valid argument for deletion. The character referenced by this article is a major character in a fictional series of books and as such is inherently notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I mean, I actually disagree with flat out deletion for this, but most of your arguments here for a speedy keep is kind of a checklist of things that aren't valid AFD arguments, like WP:ATTP or WP:NOTINHERITED.Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The only source is a trivial Top X list. Previous AfDs are irrelevant if enough time has passed. Articles must be assessed by current standards. There's no real world information aside from the one irrelevant source, so it fails WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I'm actually kind of shocked that there aren't actual useful sources on him, considering that he is one of the main characters of the Drizzt novels. But, outside of primary sources and plot summaries of those primary sources, I'm not really finding anything outside of things like brief announcements that he will be appearing in various video games or D&D adventures. The List of Forgotten Realms characters is currently a huge mess that needs some massive culling/cleaning, but Bruenor is actually one of the few characters that should probably be on it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I reviewed the previous AfD discussion and found the keep arguments compelling. The article has arguably improved since then and GNG remains satisfied in my opinion. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does a single secondary source satisfy GNG? No other source provides non-primary information, so they are irrelevant in establishing notability. TTN (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By my count there are four secondary, independant sources on the article as it current stands (references 1, 3, 4, and 8), and four secondary but non-independant sources (2, 9, 10, and 11). As previously noted in the last AFD, the primary source material are Bob Salvatore's novels including this character (and others currently up for deletion); Bob Salvatore has specifically declared that he created and owns the characters, not Wizards of the Coast/TSR. That makes the Wizards of the Coast manuals and other game-specific publications secondary, non-independent sources (WP:Secondary does not mean independent would seem to be applicable here).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WAF and WP:PLOT, fictional articles must be geared towards a real world perspective. If a source does not provide real world information, it cannot be said to have significant coverage on the topic, so any source that fails to do so is irrelevant. You trying to wikilawyer for primary sources to qualify as secondary does not help regardless. TTN (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete true, secondary does not mean independent. Which is why to count towards GNG a source must be both secondary and independent. At best we have one secondary source. GNG says we need multiple such sources. So we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the arguments put forth by John Pack Lambert, TTN and the nom appear to be the most accurate assessment of sourcing, and as such fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I've reviewed the sources in this revision. 5, 6, and 7 are direct from the novels, so can't establish notability. 2, 8, 9, and 10 are published by Wizards of the Coast. There's always been debate about whether they are independent sources, but I believe they're fairly substantial. 1 is a good source, but only a passing mention in the context of a brief description of the trilogy of novels. I can't figure out how substantial 3 is, but it seems like a good source. In the article it's only used to reference a minor detail (being friends with Drizzt) so there might not be anything else to it. 4 is the source that can most easily be seen to be decent, but it's still just a single paragraph. It's possible there are other profiles of the character somewhere, but I went through pages of search results and couldn't find any. There's enough sourced material to include some content in the character list though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Lightburst (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I agree with Torchiest's comments - Jay (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. History left undeleted in case anyone thinks there is anything worth merging across. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Entreri

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

Fictional character. The entry is long, and that's about all that it has going for it - pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails NFICTION/GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 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} 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure fancruft. Kacper IV (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect based on current sourcing. If there is another truly notable Drizzt character, I'd imagine it'd be him, but the current two "Top X" lists are too trivial. TTN (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD and on the grounds that major recurring characters in a best-selling series remain inherently notable. (I will concur that the article is unnecessarily long and in need of a rewrite to remove the overly world-specific focus, but AFD is not cleanup.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently notable" is not a thing and has never been a thing. TTN (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters - There really is not much in the way of reliable, secondary sources that discuss him much outside of pure plot summary. He gets a few mentions here and there, but generally he is not the focus of the coverage, and nothing in-depth is said about him. That said, he probably does have enough that he is one of the few characters that should actually be included in the character list of the setting. Rorshacma (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters, nothing cited of significance to merge. Fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Another one with nothing of substance out there that I can find. Possible search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. I dont see anything significant to merge - Jay (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Rod of Seven Parts. Seems like a sensible compromise. Sandstein 06:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional item passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and extreme level fancruft. While the prior AfD found, finally, a single non-primary source that mentions it ([3]) the reference is in passing. The Rod of SEVEN Parts in the form of magical artifacts is mentioned there briefly, the chapter is entitled The Rod of MANY Parts, discusses other magical artifacts (Rod of EIGHT Parts, etc.). Furthermore, the Rod of Seven Parts as discussed there does not refer to a magical artifact but to a storytelling principle, so the article as written should get TNTed anyway since it if anything is notable, it is not a random DnD magical treasure, but said storytelling principle (however, I don't think this said principle can be called notable with one source, and I don't see it discussed anywhere else). Nothing to merge anywhere. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 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} 05:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT and TNT at best. Kacper IV (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reading those old discussions shows how much the Wikipedia has evolved, I can't believe that at one time "keep because so-and-so is a sore loser" was not challenged. If one cannot source fictional elements to something outside of the sphere in which it was created, e.g. sourcebooks, handbooks, Dragon Magazine, etc... then it does not belong here. ValarianB (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nomination. This is not notable in any sense of the word. There have never been any good sources actually presented. This is simply one of those articles where a bunch of people pile on for it to become an inclusionist vs deletionist fight for some unfathomable reason. TTN (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outside of primary sources, references to the Rod are fairly passing, mostly being relegated to "Top Ten" style lists that don't do much more than describe plot details about what it is. The source mentioned above, found in the prior AFD, is, as the nom said, not really about the fictional object itself. And, regardless, it seems to be the only real source that could really be considered a reliable, secondary source giving more than passing coverage on it which, alone, is not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. It could potentially be used as a Redirect target to such things like The Rod of Seven Parts (one of the adventures that it was the centerpiece of), but that seems to be about it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AFD. Failing that, merge any useful data and Redirect to The Rod of Seven Parts as above. (I'd argue strict keep, but I have to admit I don't see the point of having two separate articles, one ostensibly about the macguffin in the other.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG, zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - It seems a source mentioned in the previous AFD was lost in the shuffle. Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives is a major piece of coverage in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. Pages 87–89 in that source discuss the object in detail, not just descriptively, but with analysis, and quotes from multiple game developers who talk about how the item inspired their own game design choices. There's also Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Experience of Imagined Worlds, which isn't quite as big, but still almost two pages (130–131) that do some analysis of the topic. Those two combine to create enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits

The first source appears to be about a general gaming concept that isn't inherently linked to the item and the module more than the item itself. The second source is pretty trivial. I don't see how either makes for a stand-alone topic. TTN (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of the first source, as I think it is about the item itself: "The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons...". It then goes on to talk specifically about assembling the rod, mentioning the seven Latin words on each piece, which is a direct reference to the D&D item as the inspiration for the general gaming concept. I hope others will examine the source and judge for themselves. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly mention and discuss this source in my OP post above, and the issue is it is not about this item. It discusses a literary concept, and not a particular magical item. "The rod of many parts" =/= "Rod of Seven Parts". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote further to make my point cleaer. I've added bolding:

The rod of many parts is heavily grounded in the history of RPGs, originating in a 1982 pen-and-paper module for Dungeons and Dragons numbered "R7" and entitled "Dwarven" Quest for the Rod of Seven Parts. In this scenario, adventurers seek out the seven fragments of a magical staff called the Rod of Law. Each of these sections has its own magical properties that combine when the staff is reassembled to provide the strength to vanquish the Queen of Chaos. Each part of the Rod of Seven is named after one word of a Latin sentence, with each section reading respectively "Ruat," "Coelum," "Fiat," "Justitia," "Ecce," "Lex," and "Rex". This phrase translates to "Though Chaos Reign, Let Justice Be Done. Behold! Law is King" (boxed set, insert).

The text is specifically talking about the Rod of Seven Parts as the originator of the concept. And later on:

Hence, the meaning of the quest is emergent, acquired through the complex manipulations required to find all parts of the staff. As the scenario book explains, "The quest for the Rod of Seven Parts begins when the player characters embark on a search for the first piece...."

And finally, in the first sentence of the next paragraph:

The "rod of seven parts" principle carries forward from the 1982 module...

I don't see how it could be any more explicitly referring to the item itself, and the game design concept it embodies and, more crucially, essentially birthed. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes to show that the Ro7P is mentioned in this context in passing (GNG requires in-depth analysis). The discussed concept is different (but also not notable, I looked for sources for it too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an item that has been in D&D canon for over 40 years and has external sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, "being in canon of a ficitonverse for few decades" has ZERO connection to anything related to GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good arguments in the previous AfD it is vexatious to renominate over and over. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given extensive discussion I'm not sure a relist will make consensus clearer (as opposed to the current no consensus I see) but since there has been a move towards keep since Torchiest's analysis let's see if we can find consensus and avoid a possible 5th nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Closely linked concepts, very close name match. This doesn't need two stand-alone articles, and the real-world concept (RPG accessory) has more weight than the fictional concept (artefact). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG, and the redirect target also fails GNG and WP:NBOOK currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to merge with The Rod of Seven Parts. Somehow I didn't notice there were two separate articles for the item itself an a gaming book about it. I think merging them makes sense both in terms of strengthening their combined notability and in removing confusion. There's no clear reason why the artifact page wouldn't have the definite article The in the title anyway. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 21:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as the nom). Good merge target found, I prefer merge as well right now. The accessory is notable per NBOOK and can contain some info about the fictional gadget/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 11 December 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. There's a debate about whether the current sourcing is sufficient, and a large part of the conversation on both sides isn't fully responded to and discussed out. That said, my read of the discussion is that consensus exists to retain the article based on its current sourcing. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Menzoberranzan

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. And frankly, a disservice to Internet users, who should be directed to a much better https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Menzoberranzan anyway _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 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} 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Fancruft, pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD and several sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did find one seemingly reliable source that actually does some in-depth analysis of the location in this book, but a single source is not really enough to pass the WP:GNG. I'm actually having a bit of trouble deciding what is the best approach to this one. While the current article is nothing but pure, primary sourced WP:PLOT information on a fictional location that shouldn't be kept, the name of the fictional city was also used as the title of several books that I've found reviews for, as well as a video game that we already have an article on. So, should this article be deleted and have the video game's article be moved to its namespace? Should the article be kept and completely rewritten to be about the coverage of the products that share its name rather than pure, crufty plot info? Should the whole thing be nuked and start over from scratch? Should it simply be Redirected to Drow, where it is already covered? The only thing I'm certain on is that the current contents of the article should largely not be kept, but I'm still undecided on the actual process we should go about when taking care of that. Rorshacma (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - My gut would say it should be able to establish notability, but reality seems to differ. Unless there are sources available, it does not need to be retained. TTN (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The subject is notable and with a bit of work notability can be satisfied.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search reveals additional secondary sources that mention Menzoberranzan specifically.^[1]^[2]

^[3]^[4]. Question: is it normally considered good practice for a deletion nominator to do a quick Google Scholar search for secondary sources before nominating an article for deletion? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Dungeons and Desktops". www.taylorfrancis.com. doi:10.1201/9781351273404. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
^ Zdanowicz, Jessica; Handzel, Matthew; Vuong, Elaine (October 2013). "The Factory Times October 2013". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26
^ Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

Comment That first source is actually talking about the video game of the same name, which I talked about in my above comment, rather than the fictional city that this article is about. That second reference is also not about the subject at all. Its only mention of the city is stating that in the MMO Neverwinter (video game), one of the classes you can choose is a "Menzoberranzan Renegade", and that is it. It doesn't talk about the city at all. Its also from a student-run publication at a college, so I'm not sure if it would even count as a reliable source, in any case. Rorshacma (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Along with the video game, Menzoberranzan has been a the setting (or key location) for a bunch of Forgotten Realms novels & has been detailed in a few D&D sourcebooks. I'll try to list them here (but given the 30+ Drizzt books that I'm not super familiar with, I'll probably miss a few) Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC):[reply]

Novels: Legend of Drizzt series (Homeland, Exile, Starless Night, Siege of Darkness); Starlight & Shadows series (Daughter of the Drow, Tangled Webs, Windwalker (minor mention at the end)); War of the Spider Queen series (Dissolution, Insurrection, Condemnation, Extinction, Annihilation, Resurrection); Neverwinter Saga (Charon's Claw), Companions Codex (Night of the Hunter, Rise of the King, Vengeance of the Iron Dwarf); Homecoming (Archmage, Maestro, Hero); A Reader's Guide to R. A. Salvatore's the Legend of Drizzt.
Sourcebooks: Menzoberranzan (2E boxed set, 1992); Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3E, 2001); Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (4E, 2008); Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue (Edition-neutral campaign setting published during 4E, 2012); Out of the Abyss (5E adventure book, 2015)

Keep per prior AFD it "Transcends a single work of fiction". It needs a lot of work to clean it up but we did that successfully for Neverwinter during its AFD and I think that can serve as a model for what needs to be done with Menzoberranzan. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources have nothing to do with Notability. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the wrong article, but Neverwinter appears to never have been nominated and has the same issues as this article. TTN (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFD and additional sources noted above. (Normally for locations I'd agree with a merge to the appropriate list article, but as noted above there are sufficient external references to make this one independently notable.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vulcan's Forge: per my comment below, there is a problem with the sources (they appear to be in passing and worse, not about this topic at all...)/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With all due respect, I don't see anything in the keep rationales that goes beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googlehits (I always love learning a new blue ink term) refers to citing the number of hits as an argument whereas I have posted links to sources. My comment about Google Scholar refers to the ease with which I was able to find sources rather than the number of hits. On an unrelated note, thanks to the editor for cleaning up my citations. Is there a reason why, other than gatekeeping,the visual editor doesn't work here? Are my settings off? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: I am not sure about the code (but you can see how it was fixed in the history tab, as well as by whom). But Googlehits also refers to citing random sources that come up in GOOGLEHIT search, without presenting any evidence that said source is relevant. For example, I have reviewed your first source, [4], and not only it is a mention in passing, but it is about Menzoberranzan (video game), which is a separate (if related) topic. This suggests to me that you have not looked at said sources, just typed the search phrase into google, and reported here some reliable looking results without bothering to check what they say about this topic. The second source doesn't want to open for me (Google Chrome warning about potentially malicious website). The third source [5] is the very definition of a mention in passing (in fact, the entire sentence here consists of the mention of the city name, the location itself is hardly discussed outside maybe a single sentence). Sorry, but this is no different from "citing the number of hits" - you just cited four 'nicer' hits, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources and I disagree with your assessment of them. They clearly indicate the importance of the topic of the article as a fictional setting. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This lovely text devotes an entire chapter (chapter 9, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," to Menzoberranzan^[1] AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your prior sources were bad or worse, and this source doesn't appear in Google Books preview mode, can you provide us with either a quotation or a screenshot, to back up your claim? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're offering a subjective assessment of the sources with which I disagree; in terms of establishing GNG they are more than apt. As for this philosophy book, request it through ILL if you can or look up a review of it through a library database. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pop culture philosophy series that the book is part of, and the book is a collection of essays with an overarching editor - Chapter 9 is on the philosophy of this particular fictional place, written by someone whose only other citation is writing about Star Wars. I haven't seen the article but I've read the summary, and I cannot determine whether that source satisfies WP:GNG as I can't determine if it's reliable or independent, or if it represents WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known series in the field. You can read about it here: https://andphilosophy.com/about/. William Irwin is the series editor and Blackwell is a well-known press. I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall or not but this review of the book is complimentary.13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)'

Yes, that's paywalled. I'm familiar with the series, I received a copy as a gift once of another book. I'm just not entirely convinced of its editorial standards - as you know they cater to fans of specific pop culture subjects, and I'm not sure how I would analyse anything written within those books on notability grounds - I'm not completely dismissing it, but I think there's a very good question as to where it lies on the "fan fiction to reliable source" scale. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If considered a proper source, it definitely provides enough analysis when looking through the text of it. Though that is the only source so far I'd consider to be actually worthwhile, so I'm still of the opinion to redirect. The source definitely would be good to use on a Drow article. TTN (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's definitely a good source. From the paywalled review: "This is not a book written with literature scholars in mind. Nor is it a book primarily about literature. But for anyone interested in taking up the scholarly study of roleplaying games, Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy presents a number of interesting ideas and entry points. The essays are readable enough to work for undergraduate students; the best of them nicely demonstrate how popular culture in general and roleplaying games in particular could benefit from a critical perspective. Certainly, some essays are not brilliant and some authors seem more interested in teaching the reader better ways to play the game. I would also have much preferred separate bibliographies for each chapter, but, on the whole, reading the book was time well spent." Ekman, Stefan. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom, Ekman, Stefan. Extrapolation; Liverpool Vol. 55, Iss. 2, (2014): 258-261. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I don't have access to the Hummel piece but it receives a mention in a journal review: Canavan, A. (2015). Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 26(3 (94)), 573-576. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26321182

Quote: "Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy is a new volume in Blackwell's long running Philosophy and Pop Culture series. [...] It appears that Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy has two major goals. The first is the series' overarching goal of demonstrating that philosophy is not a dusty, dry subject. [...] The second is to use Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) to illustrate philosophical questions and to test philosophical theory [...]. In part four, Matt Hummel's essay, "Menzoberranzan: A Perfect Unjust State," uses the infamous Drow city to discuss notions of justice and injustice". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just don't see this being notable. There's a lot of sources, but it's a fictional place and there's barely any significant coverage - it gets a couple blurbs in a couple book reviews, and there was a video game named after it which was a good sign - but I'd like those who want to keep this to answer, which are the WP:THREE best sources which support its notability? I've gone thru all of them and the reviews above (apart from the second one as my browser flagged me from continuing) and am strongly leaning delete, but want to see where the !keeps are coming from as I've never heard of this before, and there are a number of passionate contributors here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added some of the content from Hummel to the lead. I'll supplement the article with additional content from this source over the next few days.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although some judicious trimming (such as the Houses of Menzoberranzan) is in order. The source Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy book already mentioned has some solid coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added since the AFD started, or merge to Forgotten Realms. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 3 December 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 Bas-Lag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Crobuzon

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional location passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure PLOT. Prior AfD is a wonderful keep triumvirate of WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:PRIMARY sources are sufficient, and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 26 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} 05:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Fancruft, no shred of analysis. Kacper IV (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bas-Lag. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bas-Lag per Necrothesp._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:26, 27 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. Sandstein 06:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Richardson

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

Justification: insufficient notability both as a subject and for inclusion in several categories (e.g. space scientists). Most notable achievement is as a young community activist promoting science-related efforts. All other minor recognition, including several sourced articles, are merely reporting on or direct responses to the singular philanthropic achievement. 14.207.5.104 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found Time, NPR, ABCNews, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor. She is an activist who has been raising money since she was 9. A bit special I'd say. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will not suggest deleting it. The article meets criteria, it just needs a little hand to rewrite it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is at best short, human interest type stories. These are not the things that build actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is there so it should be kept. Subject has received coverage far beyond the local news outlets who typically report on the doings of school-age children. The focus of the article is correctly centered upon the present activist – who is clearly making waves – rather than the future astronaut. StonyBrook (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, including NBC News, ABC News, The Florida Times, Mashable, and others, including People.com, Face2Face Africa, and this book: [6]. (I'm not sure we should have her full date of birth, though.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:53, 10 December 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. The Keep arguments raise some good points about evaluating the significance of an award within the overall context of what awards are offered, and for the relevance of population when evaluating national awards (should a national award from Dominica or Monaco be given the same weight as one from China or Brazil?). That said, I don't think this should be taken as a strong test case for the Padma Shri in particular as conferring notability, since this subject has at least one other national award that was also a factor for some commenters. Regardless, the overall consensus in this specific case is to keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Bhalla

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating 2 other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: possibly soft. While I read WP:ANYBIO say suitable awards likely indicate notability it also says there is not necessarily the case for an article. Actually article content and potential and available sources are also reasons for an article meaning and here I think I am seeing from the current sourcing is far too much reliance upon the award itself and dictionary/gazette style sources with a small bit of a research paper. This is not to detract from the RL subject of the article. One basic problem in my opionion is we have not enough content or context in the article. I anyone wishing to keep should present 3 WP:RS sources per WP:THREE. Possibly may also be WP:TOOSOON. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Djm-leighpark. The Padma award by itself, especially when the recipient is an Indian, is not necessarily a sign of notability in the subject's field of interest. It can be a sign of the subject's political connections within the government of the day. Not enough reliable sources, esp. scholarly sources, here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. In addition he has also won the prestigious Dr. B. C. Roy Award (A national award), as mentioned in this source^[2] that also covers the subject in detail. So I am voting keep in lieu of these 2 awards per WP:ANYBIO as well as WP:GNG being met. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dungeons & dragons and philosophy : read and gain advantage on all wisdom checks. Robichaud, Christopher. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 978-1-118-39764-0. OCLC 881280343.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^ https://medicaldialogues.in/sir-ganga-ram-hospital-nephrologist-dr-ak-bhalla-conferred-with-dr-bc-roy-award/

Comment: about the Roy Award According to our article this has been awarded to as many as 55 people in the medical field alone in a single year. (that article's ref 42) DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: about the Roy Award Dr. B. C. Roy Award is the highest Indian medical award and is given by the Medical Council of India, the apex body for medical education in India (see here). Numbers are often misleading as India is a country of over 1.35 billion people. A comparison with a country such as France, which has a population of 67 million, 55 awardees a year in India will translate into less than three awards a year in France.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a major award by all standards. Though a fourth level civilian honour in India, you may safely ignore the first award, Bharat Ratna, which is awarded very sparingly, only 48 awardees since 1954. Padma Shri is a recognition of major contributions in the fields of Arts, Civil Service, Literature & Education, Medicine, Public Affairs, Science & Engineering, Social Work, Sports and Trade & Industry. The total number of recipients in the 65 years of its existence is only 1840.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Padma Shri is major award and sufficient for notability. It alone is sufficient to pass our GNG. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep is not possible after prior delete vote. The concept that a Padma Shri is by itself sufficient for notability fell at the precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. B. Buckshey. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The equivalent honour in England is the OBE. This has been repeatedly held not to indicate notability . FWIW, in earlier years I several times argued that it ought to be, but the consensus was always against me, and once that had been established, I followed the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A low grade honor is not sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I fail to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. B. Buckshey establishes consensus that a Padma Shri award is not enough by itself to give presumed notability. Indeed, I find it hard to see why that AfD was closed as Delete with no relists. There were 3 Keep !votes on the basis that a Padma Shri award gives notability, 2 Delete !votes (including the nominator) who argued that it doesn't, and 3 Delete !votes that don't address the Padma Shri. That is not enough to hold up as a consensus-establishing precedent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again Also, it is not strictly true to say that it is the equivalent of an OBE. That is the fourth class of the Order of the British Empire. However, there are higher awards than the highest class of the Order of the British Empire: leaving out Dukes and Earls, which are only created for or bestowed on members of the royal family now, there are Barons/Baronesses, Knights of the Garter and Knights of the Thistle, and Baronets, all higher in precedence than the highest class of the Order of the British Empire, so the OBE comes in about 7th. The Padma Shri is stated to be the 4th highest level of civilian award, not just the fourth highest of a particular order. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And, as far as numbers go, a total of 2840 Padma Shri awards have been made in its 65 year history. Going on the 2019 Queens Birthday Honours List (and remembering that there is also the New Year's Honours List), over 500 OBEs are awarded each year, and over 250 CBEs. The Padma Shri is much more exclusive, especially considering the respective populations of the UK and India. I would certainly argue that all recipients would meet WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen and this subject clearly meet WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award, a country of over 1.35 billion people. I don't really understand why some editor ignore this award? This is obviously WP:IDONTLIKE. DGG what is your problem? You know nothing about of India. btw I'm from Myanmar. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft through the usual channels, if editors think that the deficiencies identified can be fixed there. BD2412 T 17:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. B. Buckshey

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating two other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award in India, a country of over 1.35 billion people, and the total number of awardees is only 2840 people in its history of 65 years. Another claim of the subject of the article to notability is that he served as the honorary physician to three Indian Presidents. The generally agreed norm is that if a subject satisfies one of the several criteria of notability, we keep the article in. Here, the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO and applying another criterion is not called for. Further, WP:PROF does not apply here as the subject cannot be termed as an academic in the true sense of the term. Another valid point to note is that the WP:PROF advises This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I've gandered at this as jojo@nthony/Tachs is on my watchlist probably from a long gone AFD/DRV). I've rescued various dead links to see what they but roughly speaking they mostly seem to be of directory entries all the information of note seems to be at [7] but maybe the best bits didn't make the article. The "Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology" may be relevant and I'd wonder exactly what Colombo Plan Fellowship meant (maybe a tad here [8]. I confess to being unimpressed by awards unless more solid reasons for the awards are given. I'd also not the appointment here: [9]. There a little about him on this ppt ... indirectly seemls to imply he has died (but by no means certain) [10]. Very likely associated with the "Buckshey Award" [11] which also has glimpse mention on 978-1600218569 P.216. Possibly not quite enough demonstrable at present but access to 1950s to early 2000s online can be patchy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep but it is very tight. He seem through the middle part of the transition of mental health provisioning in Dehli and seems held in high regard by the local Delhi Psychiatric Society. A good article on the HMD would be better but we dont have it and a couple more dates on his career. I've worked some things roughly into the article but it needs a tidy and I've lost the refs I need for the cn's. Unless there is some substance and story behind awards to explain why they are given I'd probably lean delete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with jojo@nthony Rocky 734 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I've said on a similar deletion page, the fourth level Padma awards when given to Indians are as much markers of political connections as of the kind of notability Wikipedia considers for inclusion, i.e. a measure of whom you know than of what you know. There is nothing in the reference list that qualifies as a scholarly source. Wikipedia is not a phonebook of psychiatrists in Delhi. I say this as someone who has created a number of psychiatrists- psychoanalysts-, and psychiatry related pages, which even if they have only one citation are of people of such notability that I can without much work find dozens other scholarly citations: Dorothy Burlingham, Hampstead Clinic (Anna Freud Centre), Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Arnold Modell, Philip Holzman, San Francisco Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, Arnold Goldberg, Jerome Kavka, Training analysis, Lay analysis, Supervised psychoanalysis, and Phyllis Greenacre. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my comment elsewhere, awards are given in many countries in the East and the West, based on political connections and India is no exception. But that should not stand in the way of impartially assessing an honour. There were people who thought the Nobel Prize for Literature given to Bob Dylan was an indiscretion, but that does not tarnish the highest literary honour in the world.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that we obtain a list of all the fourth-level Padma awardees since 1954 and create Wikpedia articles on each of them? That would be the unmistakable inference of your argument. Like this gentleman, nothing else would be needed by way of establishing notability. If you have sources other than the fluff the article is currently bedaubed with, please produce them here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created with the premise that, Padma Shri, being a major award, makes P. B. Buckshey, a recipient of the award, notable per WP:ANYBIO. I am semi-retired from Wikipedia and got involved in this discussion only after getting the notification regarding the deletion process. During my 14 years or more here at Wikipedia, I have seen someone developing the article in due course, like many of the stubs before, if the stub does not get deleted before that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tachs: This claim is virtually key to your defence and I would hope closes/relists give guidance. My best albeit imperfect thinking on this is given on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh test case. This article does not rely on that award in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment above. While the subject has been awarded a Padma Shri the article is not majorly dependent on the award as per say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla at this point. To be clear (and I may be wrong) Buckshey likely does not massively outstand in prowess ... it is more with the time period and dearth of provisioning that he worked and recognition by successors. I am somewhat minded of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Battersbee, plays one game of cricket on one single and gets to have an article! (Given the travelling logistics at the time it does actually add to the value). For Buckshey one has to context of Delhi in the 1950s-1990s ... rather than Boston in the 20th century. Awards can at times be tainted anyway ... in the UK we have controversies such as [12]. So I am minded to be wary of an award in itself unless the article can demonstrate a little more behind it, as to an extent this one can.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to bend over backward for people who have nothing but fluff to recommend them. It wasn't just Boston in the 20th century, there were plenty of London and Chicago there. If you don't like the 20th century, I can produce the 21st. Here is an example of a 21st-century Boston psychiatrist who does not have a Wikipedia page. If you don't think he is notable, please take a look at some of the other people on the scientific advisory panel listed on the left, which includes two Nobel laureates. If you don't like psychiatry and Boston, here is a 21st-century historical demographer in England. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. My point is that when people are notable, it does not take a rocket scientist or a Hegalian dialectician to figure it out. If you are grasping at straws, then they are not notable. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Outrageous! You have just insulted those who award the Padma Shri of India as fluff let alone honorable members of the Delhi Psychiatric Society! Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't insulted anyone, only stated the obvious that the three people up for deletion do not have anything by way of scholarly sources to recommend them. The fourth-level Padma award is not a reliable scholarly source. There are at least a hundred psychiatrists in the US who are more notable in the field of psychiatry by Wikipedia's rules than any psychiatrist in Delhi, but who do not have Wikipedia pages. I'm not insulting anyone. I know the scene there. The best-known psychotherapist in Delhi (who has now retired and moved away), Sudhir Kakar, is a lay-psychoanalyst, i.e. with a Ph. D. but not a medical degree, and does not have the Padma award to my knowledge, though he is very notable. India is a conservative society. Going to therapy, acknowledging psychiatric issues is not yet a part of its culture even among the wealthy urban classes, let alone among the rural poor. Bharat Vatwani, the Mumbai psychiatrist, who recently won the Ramon Magsaysay Award, but who also does not have any Padma recognition, had this to say:

"Nearly 15% of Indian adults suffer from some form of mental illness. This translates to more than 180 million people in the country, though only a minuscule number have access to the necessary medical facilities. There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, especially in rural areas. According to Vatwani, “Over 80% of the government hospitals in India do not have a psychiatrist. One of the main reasons being that many Indian psychiatrists prefer to move abroad, for better prospects. There are less than 4,000 practising psychiatrists in a nation of over a billion people!” Of the people who do have access to professional help, very few are willing to seek it. Mental illness continues to be largely a taboo subject in India." (See here).

I could go on, but what would be the point of it? But please do not feign outrage, and please do not attempt faux respect, i.e be paternalistic, by calling the Delhi Psychiatric Society "honorable." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS As for the "honorable" bodies, this is what the Indian Psychiatric Society does, in reaction to a recent Lancet Editorial on Kashmir. They will be rewarded by their government with the Padmas. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: You can't even keep focus on the entities and time periods mentioned, and appear to have a pro US bias that you cannot contain.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark It must be a small wonder then that with that lack of focus I managed to write so many articles on India, including the FA India. See my user page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler The FA may be grand but we're on the stub/start groundfloor here. I was looking more at Philip Holzman where there is little on article source or little use of source content, a failing somewhat akin to the DGG example three. However I won't test Holzman at with a [[WP:POINT]y AfD as I'd half to ignore the WP:BEFORE on the Professor/Emeritus if nothing else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark But you can't. See the avalanche of sources, scholarly no less, not just reliable, that will come tumbling down your way if you do. I don't think you understood my point earlier, where I said, that I have written articles on psychiatrists that have only one source, implying that at a minute's notice they can be supplemented with the dozens that exist out there and that properly belong to the article, but that because of my laziness and inattention and others' lack of interest, are not there. Here, on the other hand, we have a monumental vacuum of sources, a nothingness. More seriously, this page does a disservice to encyclopedicity in Wikipedia, to India, to Indian psychiatry, for it lowers the credibility of those that properly belong there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Of course I don't understand you. Credit or discredit is strangely irrevelant in the page entity. Multidimension and not tunnel is what I say. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark I gave you a restricted offering of sources on Holzman, confining the search to university presses, with "preview available." Otherwise, in fuller dimension, there are 305 sources for Holzman in Google Books alone. Please attempt that deletion discussion on Holzman. I'll eat my shoe if it lasts more than a few minutes, that is, if I am informed. Seriously, what the heck are you doing here, endlessly arguing with no content to the argument? This is not an ego issue; it has to do with lack of encyclopedic information in a bogus page, not about Holzman, one of the great psychiatrists of recent times. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Tangoing takes two. Due process indicated to me a WP:BEFORE on Holzman would fail, it is therefore inppropriate to attempt it. I did consider doi. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark :) Well, even if all this does nothing for Mr Buckshee, it will help improve the Holzman article. What is doi? Do you mean WP:DOI? That is not a bad idea. Meanwhile, just a minute ago, I noticed that Holzman is the author of the article "Personality," in Encyclopedia Britannica. There was a long obituary (not paid) about him in the New York Times in 2004, and an even longer obituary in the journal Nature. The latter two will help in elaborating the biographical section. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. In addition he has also won several other prestigious awards. "Dr. Buckshey was honoured with Padmashri Award. Shiromani Award for outstanding achivements in Psychiatry and Neurology, Eminent Citizen of India Award 1994, Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award 1994 for outstanding achivements in Pyschiatry & Neurology, Ati Param Visisht Chikitsa Medal 1997 etc." as mentioned in this source--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The is also the matter of the WP:PROF/WP:NACADEMIC sated by National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences. As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about other articles When I checked our category of those who had received the awards, at least 1/3 were unambiguously notable. So either we are getting all the notable ones, or the entire list does have to be checked to see if there are notable ones we have not covered. I would strongly support (and am willing to work on revising) articles on every one of them who do meet the usual standards. I have always advocated intensive work on all areas that are under-covered here to find the notable people. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sourcing I don't think the unavailability of sources for the modern period is actually a problem--the articles do document what the people have done. Where it would be a real problem is for the British period. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, the British period is impeccably documented. (Examine the naturalists of British India on my user page.) It is the post-independence period, especially the last 40 years, that are increasingly troublesome. Witness this physician. Please note the extraordinarily unreliable sources: a powerpoint of an informal annual gathering being dressed up to look like journal article, alumni group entries being used for sourcing, WP:OR in the form of looking up voter lists and directories of the Indian Psychiatric Association; WP:SYNTHESIS in the form of randomly throwing in a reliable source (the only one in the article) that does not reference Buckshey to piece together a sentence about him being active during a time in which Delhi (which is consistently misspelled) had few psychiatrists. What exactly is a neuro-physician anyway? It is not a term of English, nor of any regional variety of English. Such is the frenetic refurbishment, a snow job, that has been done on the article in the last few days. (Contrast with Philip Holzman that I expanded in a few hours last night, or Arnold Modell that I will also expand.) Whosoever attempts to close this will need to examine the sources with the eyes of a hawk. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fellowship in the International Medical Sciences Academy is not enough by itself (honorary fellowship might be enough). And apart from that, and apart from the protestations and special pleading above, we still don't have enough in-depth independent reliable sourcing about the subject for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to be sceptical of articles that list a lot of minor honors and this is one of those. Colombo Plan, "records of giving psychiatry", assistant director of something, and fourth highest civilian award are all fairly minor. Large numbers of professional people can claim similar "honors" without being notable. More often than not, these things merely come with the territory. --regentspark (comment) 23:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be clear Jiloha & Kukreti (2018) is not claimed as a WP:RS for notability purposes. To quote Dorcas Lane "My on weakness ..." my spelling. I've addressed some recent comments about in the article. While recent comments trumpet Holzman and his article and need to start placing the emphasis of on some passing references that simply and rightfully are used to date parts of the biography to shift focus from Nacadmic claim which is ignored.07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - agreed with argument above. Not enough in-depth independent sourcing - Jay (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A late !vote that completely fails to address the neither notability claim of WP:NACADEMIC (national professor) which is thus standing. It has also been presented that Padma Shree sating WP:ANYBIO is sufficient for notability; (my pragmatic but possibly unorthodox view on that honour is that it is a counter towards WP:SIGCOV however closer will also note that this point has been widely discussed across this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 6 December 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 has been converging towards agreeing that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Prakash Singh

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

Fails WP:PROF -- I am unable to find any highly cited work that shows him an influence on his field. The only claim to notability is the Padma Shri, but this is a 4th level award, and if his career is representative, is routine for people in administrative positions.

There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see . I am nominating two other individual,s considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Shri is a fourth level civilian award in India, a country of over 1.35 billion people, and the total number of awardees is only 2840 people in its history of 65 years. The subject of the article is also famous as an institution builder which is mentioned in the article. The generally agreed norm is that if a subject satisfies one of the several criteria of notability, we keep the article in. Here, the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO and applying another criterion is not called for. If we move along these lines, Wikipedia will become leaner by the day. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a lawyer but if we apply WP:PROF on him, the article Mahatma Gandhi will not be there. Further, WP:PROF advises This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable. Padma Shri award is prestigious and given to notable people only.Krishna's flute (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any evidence for "institution builder" Contributing to the establishment of a single academic department is not institution building, as contrasted to being the principal person who founds a university . The question here is if Padma Shri is enough, and the fact that it is given for such little accomplishments as given here is eveidence to the contrary. The fact that it is awarded with the ref saying its for hispublications, when his publicationsare trivial shows the quality of the award cannot be assumed. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was instrumental in creating the department of gastroenterology at Patna Medical College and at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Padma Shri was not awarded to him for his scientific publications but for his contributions, in general, in the field of Medicine in India. The argument, as you put it, is straightforward - whether Padma Shri is a notable award. The fourth highest civilian award of a country of 1.35 billion people, I guess, is notable. A point to note here is that the the recipients of the higher three awards, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna, together count only 1609 since 1954.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:~~Delete~~: (see end of paragraph): Article as currently stands and I'm not sure it can go much farther. I'm leaning delete because the article does not seem to evidence the notability of the subject to me at his point. I'm not at all brilliant on guidelines but I've tried. At WP:ANYBIO. The header above it says (my emphasis) "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.". I'm try to compare with UK MBE/OBE/CBE/Knighthoods ... and in general my gut feeling an MBE would not get an article unless meeting in on other criteria (probably true for OBE and CBE also) whereas a Knighthood might. And I'm inclined to think also this likely ought to be the case for the fourth level Civilian award in India; albeit the population/award ratio is likely lower. In summary the article needs to strongly evidence why it is there and give context and possibly meet criteria on another basis. The article as to demonstrate this is in a meaningful way ... not just a like of date events and awards. If the person has written articles we need a Bibliography. Sourced must be protected again WP:LINKROT so they can be re-checked. There are glimspses the subject might be notable, but the article fails to impress that to me. And I am inclined to think the situation is similar for many on List of Padma Shri award recipients (2000–2009), perhaps my random selection of Jagan Nath Kaul (excluding the awards list and the nightmarish lack of inline citations) at least at first glance if not at second) is more the minimum sort of article we ought to be trying to achieve in my view. Despite the way I may discuss these articles let it not detract from the honour of these people and I hope I have not inadvertently caused offence. Personal nobility does not correlate with Wikipedia notability. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I've switched to Draftify as there a possibilities an article may be possible but I dont believe the current sources as presented warrant it and perhaps equally I'm not seeing enough content in the article itself. Take away the awards and there's nothing left in the article. I'm concerned about stubs being presented leaving it for others to fix. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change Djm-leighpark. An article can remain a stub or start class. Being a stub is not a reason to delete. It will eventually expand. Draftify should be selected if there are volunteers willing to work on it or else it will get deleted in 6 months any way. Our focus here on AfD should be to gauge to notability and comment on the basis of it. If it is notable, there is no reason why it cannot remain as a stub or start until it can be expanded. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets the WP:GNG atleast he is the awardee of a country's 4th highest award. It cannot be neglected.Rocky 734 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@DGG: If these are test cases not individuals do they need to reported to e.g. WikiProject India? Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: @Rocky 734/Tachs-jojo@nthony/Anybody: Per WP:THREE please specifically present 3 best WP:RS sources for scrutiny. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fourth level Padma award, especially for Indians, does not mean a thing. It can be given for all sorts of political connections. Other than an incidental mention in an article about someone else, which is hardly an example of a reliable source, let alone a scholarly source that would be par for the course for an academic, there is nothing by way of the usual criteria by which WP accords notability. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let us leave out politics, political connections can earn one laurels in many countries, let alone India. The opening statement also appears to be far-fetched. Being an Indian I can safely argue that Padma awards are considered in high esteem in India.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What my reasoning means is that other than a mention of the Padma award, which is neither here nor there, there are no Wikipedia reliable sources supporting his notability. Are you proposing that we obtain a list of all the fourth-level Padma awardees since 1954 and create Wikpedia articles on each of them? That would be the unmistakable, the unerring, inference of your safe argument. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Padma Shri being a notable award, my conviction is that all the 2840 recipients of the award are notable per WP:ANYBIO. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not adequate. Citation record seems non-existent. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

If sources are inadequate, we must develop the article. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia allows stubs.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and find new sources then. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It will come eventually, if the article does not get deleted before that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below on the sourcing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. WP:India contributor here, so believe I can present more insight on the awards and subject notability. The Padma Shree is given to persons with large social contributions, which generally makes them notable for an article. There may be exceptions but this subject is not one. He is a figure of authority in the Indian state of Bihar for Gastroenterology he being the Head of Department of Gastroenterology at PMCH, Bihar's biggest publicly owned college and hospital. He is also a member of the executive council of the Medical Council of India, which is a very important post held by top level doctors. I understand that the sourcing is hard to find, which is mainly attributed to WP:BIAS. The regional language is Hindi and print and TV media are more prominent in this part of the world in comparison to internet. The Times of India published an interview of the subject on the topic of Hepatitis and here--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: President' Medical Council of India would be a reason for an article but not just member. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As in all these test cases can I ask for experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about other articles When I checked our category of those who had received the awards, at least 1/3 were unambiguously notable. So either we are getting all the notable ones, or the entire list does have to be checked to see if there are notable ones we have not covered. I would strongly support (and am willing to work on revising) articles on every one of them who do meet the usual standards. I have always advocated intensive work on all areas that are under-covered here to find the notable people. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sourcing I don't think the unavailability of sources for the modern period is actually a problem--the articles do document what the people have done. Where it would be a real problem is for the British period. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, my parents are from this region of India. India is a third world country and Bihar can be considered as the most economically backward region of India. This should help you have some idea of the Internet Bias in the region. It is not that the subject isn't getting covered, the coverage primarily lies in the offline media. And even then we have some coverage that I listed above. My keep vote is based mainly on the notability due to his work that got him the Padma shree in the first place and then the assumption that the conferment of the award must have led to more coverage that would again be found in the offline media. Using same standard to gauge the SIGCOV sources for a doctor in the US vs the subject from this backward region will be insane. You've got to trust the contributors from the region in such cases that are hard to judge. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite all the protestations and special pleading we still don't have enough in-depth independent reliable sources about the subject to pass WP:GNG or other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would specifically like to know whether any editors think that moving this article to draft would enable the introduction of additional sources or bases for notability. BD2412 T 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 20:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can move the article to draft yourself by copying its source into your sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe, Unbelievable: you are are on the verge of inciting people to perform copies without attribution, and I'd encourage people become aware of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia before going down that route. I'll hold my breath and remain WP:CIVIL.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant WP:Wikilawyering. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe:, I am asking in the context of potentially closing this discussion administratively. BD2412 T 22:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been examining sources for 10 minutes, the existing sources haven't been well utilitised. Between the line our subject may have done some public Hepatitus campaigns and ther is talk of his published perr review'ed research. I haven't specificly found that on a search so far and there's other with the same name to cloud the searching. One of my concerns is copyvio's and reverse copyvio's and the interjection by Xxanthippe above means I'd likely ask for a refund if the community decides to delete this. Should the community determine a Padma Shri is insufficient in itself for article retention in mainspace I would agree it is in itself sufficient for any minimally reasonable request to restore to draft ... (avoids copyvio, reverse copyvio, attribution and WP:CFORK issues. there is a lot of digitally scanned content coming online at the moment so new sources are continuing to arise. OK if it get forgot after 6 months .... then so be it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In continuation of my Keep vote above, just as I had guessed about SIGCOV sources being available in Hindi, here is one from Outlook (Indian magazine) Where the subject's biography, personal life, education, career, publication etc is covered in great detail in Hindi article, which should be sufficient to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV.^[1] This also proves that more such sources can be dug up from offline sources. Apart from Padma Shree the subject has also received "Icons of Bihar" award by Outlook in 2018.^[2] being an authority figure he is the goto man for major Indian newspapers for the Gastro related topics.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] He is also one of the 6 member of the executive council of the Medical Council of India, which is a very important post held by top level doctors in India.^[7] To answer User:BD2412, yes, it will be helpful, but so far what has been dug out, IMHO is enough for a keep. Fyi ping Djm-leighpark for a review. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "पद्मश्री डॉ. विजय प्रकाश सिंह". outlookhindi.com. No. PadmaShree Dr Vijay Prakash Singh. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Outlook Icons of Bihar : Outlook Hindi". https://www.outlookhindi.com/. Retrieved 4 December 2019. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
^ Bhatia, Banjot Kaur (9 August 2014). "17 lakh Hepatitis C patients in Bihar | Patna News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. Retrieved 29 November 2019.
^ "City round-up". telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Dr. Vijay Prakash". BInvolved. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Dr Vijay Prakash". NASH24x7. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
^ "Medical Council of India". Medical Council of India. 2015. Archived from the original on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2015.

@DBigXray: Per WP:THREE you need to be focusing on the very sources and not presenting dictionary entries, youtube, passing mentions ... etc. In that context very loosely speaking (1) above looks to have an impressive shape but its in Hindi and unfortunately I do not know the language. 2. appears Outlook Hindi also wont help.(1 per publication). 3 is the best of the rest with 5,6,7 looking unacceptable for notability purposes and 4 looking very passing. Obviously the awarding of the Padma Shri is helpful in itself. I'm also a little intrigued by [13]. There's no point running about simply trying and badgering me to get me to swing my !vote from draftify to weak keep though ... what we need an explanation of the content of Ref: 1 above from a neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, Indeed #1 is an impressive source with detailed coverage. I am a native Hindi speaker, I will be glad to help you if you have any questions on translation. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my best translation attempt on the article talk page to understand what this is about. It appears the article is a sort of biography relating to have being a founder director on the BiG hospital (whether he is main honcho or one of X founder directors I am not to be knowing.... see also [14], note I've use the wayback archive at that page may be volatile any he may not be id=15 forever.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I am afraid the the translation, which reads like a PR release, does not add to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Its really quite difficult to judge as the automated translation comes out quite WP:PEACOCKy whereas someone versed in both Hindi and English could likely to a better job. It does give some clues to the content of the piece but is not so good in putting it in context On a side note as far as I can (possibly incorrrectly) gather the "BIG" hospital is a private hospital (no WP article) and perhaps not so big as the Patna Medical College and Hospital (where he also works/worked) which is might have a claim at 5400+ beds to be the biggest in the world. This is not properly source by me so I may have made mistakes.09:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark The subject still works in both these hospitals and he seems to be having some kind of ownership on BIG hospital. I am versed in both Hindi and English, FYI the biographies published in the Indian media, are almost always written with an appreciative tone. But it is not hard, to differentiate between facts and fluff, in an article. The fact that his bio has been covered in such detail in a pan India magazine is to be noted here. And this is something that is available online, I am sure there are more offline. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per any bio. Padma Shri is major award and it’s alone sufficient to pass the GNG. I’m agreeing with DBig’s reasoning. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:ANYBIO, and per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla that equating the Padma Shri with the OBE is false. The OBE is a fourth level award within the Order of the British Empire, but there are other awards which can be given to civilians in the UK which are higher than any class of the Order of the British Empire. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:23, 9 December 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 10:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill Shindler

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

Food reviewer with no evidence of notability. Sources are all examples of his work. Nothing with anybody talking about him. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Purely local, and no evidence of even local fame. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42 - while there might a lot written by him, there's very little about him. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bearian. He's prolific, but not enough written about him to make him notable. ABF992 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as writing newspaper articles and broadcasting on radio, he has also written books, including American dish : 100 recipes from ten delicious decades and El Cholo cookbook : recipes and lore from California's best-loved Mexican kitchen - and there are reviews of those books (eg in the Tampa Bay Times, Florida [15], so he might well meet WP:NAUTHOR. He has also written for the Los Angeles Magazine and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, according to articles quoting him in the Boston Globe [16] and the Newark Advocate (Newark, Ohio) [17] - the latter from a film review, so he appears to be a film critic as well. I wonder whether the nom has done WP:BEFORE, and some of the !voters don't seem to have done much research either - Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio are hardly "local" to Los Angeles. The article is a stub which does not provide a good summary of this person's achievements or evidence of his notability, but there is evidence that he is notable per WP:NAUTHOR #1 and probably #3 as well. If no one else does, I will try to add more info and sources to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should perhaps have said above "extensive on-line searches found nothing with anybody talking about him". Please assume good faith, otherwise your arguments sound a bit ad hominem which I am sure was not intended. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Velella, and my apologies. Although I said "I wonder whether the nom has done WP:BEFORE", I do see that saying "some of the !voters don't seem to have done much research either " suggests that I was assuming that you hadn't. I didn't intend to convey that - I was really not sure from your wording (and while I do try to assume good faith, it does seem, from how they word their nominations, that some AfD nominators don't look beyond the article). It would have been clearer if I'd left out 'either'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rebecca Green has located WP:RSs and this person is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few passing references that were dug up are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough evidence of notability, and stubby article - Jay (talk) 06:29, 3 December 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) Andrew Base (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantala Shivalingappa

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

Not sure if this is a notable person. Only claim to fame is that "She is known for playing Solveig in Irina Brook's Peer Gynt" but one (minor) part is not sufficient. Otherwise, it all seems to be inherited notabilty (her guru, where she studied, "worked with prestigious artists", who directed her etc). Depsite "Her performances have been praised throughout the world", we have only two reviews from the US from 2010 and 2011. Way beyond my area of expertise, so brought to AfD. Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Her dance has been detailed in the Washington Post, NY Times, New Yorker, The Nation, Financial Times, The Independent, Office of the Arts, Harvard University, University of Massachusetts Amherst Fine Arts Centre, sfgate.com, villagevoice.com, The Guardian, lemonde.fr, Yale News, Les Voix Du Monde. Changing from Weak Keep to Strong Keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on (a very small selection here)

Detailed review in SFGate, Shantala Shivalingappa review: Solo Allan Ulrich 18 April 2013 [18]
Detailed review in New Yorker, 3 November 2011 [19]
Detailed review in NYTimes, 2013 [20], NYTimes 2011 [21], NYTimes 2008 [22]
Detailed review in The Nation, Dec 2014 [23]
BriefEarly review of performance in 2001 India Today International magazine Vol 26, Pg 91 Kuchipudi dancer Shantala Shivalingappa plays Ophelia in Peter Brook's The Tragedy of Hamlet SHE WAS ONLY 14 WHEN chosen to play Miranda in Peter Brook's production of The Tempest. Now, 10 years later, Shantala Shivalingappa is ..., [24]

From what I notice, Shantala Shivalingappa has done participated in some well known dance performances and there is coverage all the way from 1992 to present. Although I understand some of them are a bit brief, however it is very rare for someone to be covered so consistently across 2 decades. I think this is definitely notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"across 2 decades"? Naughty use of language when you mean 12 years! But well done; I said when nominating this was not my area of expertise so I can accept there is coverage across a significant period of time. If that can be added to the article to show she is notable I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Emeraude (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude Actually it's across 2 decades because the earliest mention is in 1998 in Kultur Chronik The delicate Shantala Shivalingappa, who came as a guest to Wuppertal from India, is deployed with great restraint but otherwise firmly integrated in the ensemble. A tiny head movement at the start of one solo and some much slowed-down... Then 2001 (India Today), 2002 (Cahiers élisabéthains Shantala Shivalingappa's characterisation of Ophelia was also merely satisfactory. Since Laertes had been cut, she never had the chance to demonstrate Ophelia's wit or playfulness and, again, we were not especially interested in her or her..., 2003 (Hamlet in Pieces Shakespeare Revisited by Peter Brook, Robert Lepage and Robert Wilson) Shantala Shivalingappa sits on the floor as the mad Ophelia, with Toshi Tsuchitori seated directly in front of her accompanying her speech-song. Even this actual' insanity is evidently a piece of theatre. And think back to the pattern of action at, 2004 (Talking to the Audience: Shakespeare, Performance, Self) Still more frail is Shantala Shivalingappa in Brook's production, who speaks rather than sings Ophelia's songs over Tsuchitori's underscoring. Ophelia's madness cannot, it seems, be expressed as performance, despite the fact that perform with... Of course, not every one of these sources are detailed reviews. But given that she has been covered regularly over so many years, it is highly plausible that there could be more sources. which are possibly not accessibly online. In any case, I think the 5 or 6 reviews I linked in my comment should be enough for notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it's perfectly OK to bring articles to AFD :) In fact, were it not for AFD, perhaps this article would have languished in this state for don't know how many years. I will try to improve it by the end of this week.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker A wider spread than you originally gave, but still stretching the use of "across two decades". I'm just after a bit more precision numerically. "Across two decades" could be applied to a career running from 31 December 1989 to 1 January 1990, though 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000 would be an even more impressive "across two centuries". Be that as it may, well done on securing wider sources and thanks for your anticipated improvements to the article. Emeraude (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. 2000 and 1999 are in the same century. 2000 and 2001 you could go even further and say two milleniums... :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 4 December 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 agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans

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

Doesnt merit its own article. Not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: seems like a positive award with some RS coverage. I am undecided. Wm335td (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Looks like enough coverage to establish notability but I am not enough of an expert on South African media to give it much more than that. hewhoam areismyself 06:40, 26 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. Personally I would think that Editorofthewiki's additional sources push this over the threshold of notability, but my personal opinion doesn't matter here; the consensus is in favour of deletion at this time. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Parrish

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player is not notable enough, checked over the WPs as well. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 22:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage in reliable sources [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable basketball player. I dont see him deserves an article in Wiki for now - Jay (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage per WP:GNG. Doing a search on sources, including those listed above, there seems to be bits of info in multiple sources, but nothing substantial to support an article. Per WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Resorting to game-by-game logs or "crocodile hunter" tidbits would get into WP:NOTDIARY.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think the conservation part of him is important? All the sources I used were relatively indepth. I didn't even use any game logs, which would give even more info. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you didn't provide an explanation to counter the policies and guidelines that I cited.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 4 December 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) 11:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V-index

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

The V-index appears to have been published once, to minimal fanfare, and then never appeared again. The site listed as the index's home page is a dead link. There's additional info here [[32]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability at all. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only see sources for "Vindex",[33] which is probably a different company. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:32, 28 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) 21:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Sotnik

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

The article is lacking third-party sources (most of the links lead to the guy's own publications), so I have serious doubts about notability. The only time he got covered by independent sources was when he fled Russia, and it looks a lot like WP:INHERIT. Buzz105 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Half of Russian political bloggers criticize Putin and claim that Putin is after them. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 3 December 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) 09:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Dyer

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

Non-notable producer. I'm going through the list of Unreferenced BLPs with the intention of finding suitable WP:SIGCOV articles to see if they can be improved but for this producer I could not find 1 article via searches on the internet and by an offline articles search of Australian and New Zealand news sources in the ProQuest database. Fails WP:PRODUCER. Cabrils (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete producers do not get presumed notability, and we lack the sourcing here to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. Agreed with above comments - Jay (talk) 06:05, 3 December 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 Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). There's consensus that the Assassin class has significant coverage, but that it's best utilized on the Character class article. Several 'keep' votes support redirect as a second choice, and a handful are very light on any substantive argument for outright keeping the article as-is. For this reason, I've closed this accordingly as restoring the redirect. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Just a bit more fancruft. No real world notability. As per WP:GAMEGUIDE, this could be redirected to an appropriate list somewhere, but not sure where. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several independent sources cited in the article, several sources added since the AFD started, and likely more to exist, but failing that restore the redirect that was undone earlier today rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless there are sources actually discussing things from a significant real world perspective. TTN (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TTN.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). I would restore the original redirect as this topic as received coverage in third-party sources, but I am uncertain if it is enough to support enough notability for a separate article. This is also a viable search term so I think a redirect would be much better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character classes are a major feature of a major game. Clear notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get why you constantly repeat this argument. You clearly know how Wikipedia's notability works. Major or minor are completely subjective terms. Sources are the only things that matter. TTN (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly do. I've been here a long time. But I apply common sense to these debates instead of (non-existent) "rules". It's a great pity some other editors appear incapable of doing this. The apparent inability of some to get their heads around common sense and WP:BURO is one of the worst things about editing Wikipedia. Nothing here is set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that your definition of important is completely subjective, right? If there isn't objective criteria for inclusion, that opens it up for literally every minutia in every work of fiction. I'm sure you'd try to argue that it's "obvious" Tolkien and Lovecraft are more important than X video game or Y TV show released in the last thirty years, but many would disagree with you. TTN (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Some sources seemed promising, but one is a non-notable blog, and one book was used to source the class being removed in 2nd edition. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) as not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary sources satisfy notability. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). The coverage really does not show any independent notability for the subject. Even the handful of non-primary sources are doing little more than saying "This was/was not a thing in this edition", which really isn't substantial enough coverage to establish notability, or to justify splitting this off from the main article on character classes. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bee BOZ and AugusteBlanqui. There are already sufficient independent sources in the article to satisfy notability. It can stand to use more refs, but that's not a reason for deletion. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a Reception section to show coverage of the character class for notability. The publication history section needs to be cleaned up, but per Oknazevad that's not a reason to delete it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you’ve taken a bunch of minor mentions and given them vastly more weight than deserved. Even ignoring my opinion on the sources, you should definitely cut that down to a single paragraph. TTN (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Rant article highlighted 20 D&D classes of all time and listed the 1E assassin as the 5th most broken of all time and then how the class became less broken in 3E.
Geek & Sundry and Game Rant both broke down the 5E rogue of which the assassin is a subclass - both articles explain why the assassin subclass is weaker than other rogue subclasses (compare and contrast isn't minor).
Diehard Gamefan is a minor mention of the class in 4E. I'm definitely struggling to find info on the class from 4E.
ComicBook breaks down a popular character (GoT Arya Stark) in terms of the 5E assassin (ie when we think about a TV character we then compare their actions to D&D character classes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is a Top X article from a site that has released 38 pop culture lists dated 11/26/19. #2 is yet another dime a dozen Top X. #3 has no commentary on the topic at all. #4 is a nonsense pop culture article. They are not of any quality, especially not so as to require a paragraph each. TTN (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Geek and Sundry is hardly 'another dime a dozen top X.' It's a major media outlet in the industry and enough to confer GNG outright. Reading through these rake of delete nominations I'm left with the impression that some people WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT popular culture articles on Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top X lists are the bread and butter of lazy journalism. They are easy to pump out, easy to fake (as in the writer needs no real knowledge, they can just stop by Wikipedia for example), and require no editorial standards. They in no way an indicator of notability when these sites pump out list after list after list. It'd be like using Watch Mojo YouTube videos as a source. TTN (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness is picking swashbuckler as the #1 rogue archetype. Geek and Sundry is no starched Le Monde or New York Times (both of which have committed their share of lazy journalism to be fair) but as I said, it's a major media outlet for the industry and clearly contributes to WP:SIGCOV.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "just a bit more fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion; neither is WP:GAMEGUIDE, as this article is neither an excessive description of game mechanics nor a walkthrough or means by which to play the game. Per User:BOZ above, sufficient sources exist to meet the threshold for notability.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to indicate a need for a separate article. Just finding lots of passing mentions in directory like listings of the characteristics of the game does not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge and retarget to Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons), of which it's a subclass – a better target than the more general Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). It differs from the rogue class only in minor ways, and has developed in parallel with it. We don't need individual articles on every D&D subclass anymore than we need articles on every species of D&D troll (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant two-headed troll) – that's wikia stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enought secondary sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 4 December 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 of the discussion is that although the article needs considerable improvement, there are enough sources to support keeping the article as one about a notable subject. RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake nude photography

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

An eclectic mix of press clippings tangentially related to a seemingly non-notable subject. Reads like original research. Suggest redirecting to nude photography or deepfake. DHN (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a social issues and media issues so serious Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: (oppose merge / redirect ). see new !vote below to alternate target. It may require cleanup but merging or redirecting to nude photography or deepfake might cause disruption of somewhat better articles with their specific purposes which perhaps should not be diluted .... (rubbish+good leading to one half rubbish). The advice for coding was ... don't optimize, if you still want to optimize then do it later. Same with merging ... don't rush into a bad merge. And if you want to redirect not copying any content do so and if the target would need work to accept the redirect seemlessly (possibly to a section/anchor) with no WP:SURPISE say so. Promotion of one product on the target is somewhat of an issue also but that's cleanup. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed nom has changed his text from merge to redirect which is clear but I would in future suggest when changing one's nom or vote apart perhaps from a trivial typo it is better to strike the old and introduce the new. I'd also note if one wishes to suggest redirects/mergte that should be explored prior to AfD really. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Korean Times, Washington Post, CNN, Mew York Times. Notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is verging on WP:TNT territory, but this is probably a notable topic. I don't think it's appropriate to redirect it to deepfake since that's a more specific topic (the use of neural networks to create fake nudes/porn), and nude photography is too general. I'm used to this stuff being called "celebrity fakes", and that term redirects to Imagery of nude celebrities, which has a brief paragraph on the subject. There's probably enough coverage for a stand-alone article though. For example, a quick search found this: [34] I would look for more but I have to go to work now and I'm not going to google "celebrity nudes" on my work computer. If the article is kept it will have to be largely rewritten and trimmed to remove trivial examples, though. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been cleaned up and sources added. The article is still not in the best shape, but the topic meets GNG, and it's a subject of enough popular interest that the article won't languish in obscurity forever. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough subject and plenty of RS available. Article needs to be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. --John B123 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, awful subject faking someone's head on a nude body, but there are good sources here. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: (to Photo manipulation r-printworthy, r-with-history not(r-with-possibilities)). Hunting around trying to improve this article came across the Photo manipulation which covers the content of this article in my opinion at first glance very well without some of the issues that are coming up and I think we are trying to work round. Much of the content here relates to Photographic image editing of humans ( per Figure study but not necessarily posed and where context is more important). A potentially faked human image does not have to nude to give problems out article is currently ... this topical image story for example, if faked, is proving problematic for the subject [35]. Out article doesn't really cover well photoshopping for improvement of a person's appearance, for example to remove freckles. I'd like to emphaise while we have found some useful sources i'd not want to disrupt the target article so I am advocate redirect and opposing merge. I remain opposed to merge/redirect to either nude photography or deepfake for reasons given above. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is a bit messy and could use some more cleanup. I made some minor edits regarding phrasing and unverified claims. The subject is notable enough, but needs more English language sources. An expanded list of "notable cases" might lend further weight to the issue. Nimlhûg (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I revert some content that mr SpicyMilkBoy had been deleted, and I have to talk that thing with SpicyMilkBoy, but, maybe he accurate, hope any administer can reviews. Suy nghĩ mãi mà vẫn chẳng biết đặt tên là gì thiệt chán hết sức (talk) 02:20, 1 December 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) 02:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy 771

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

An incredibly short (5 minute) "experimental" film which has had no discernible coverage, no reviews, no awards, and generally fails WP:NFO and WP:GNG. If it wasn't for the (also presumably self-published) IMDb entry and creator's own website, there would be limited evidence of the film's existence. Not to mind any evidence of notability. Guliolopez (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this film qualifies as notable per WP:NFILM. In the 13 years since this film premiered, it hasn't even received 5 votes from IMDb users (as indicated by the fact that it has no average rating listed). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything resembling notability here. hewhoam areismyself 06:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text in the article does not indicate notability and I am finding nothing better in searches, including title and director searches on the https://www.northernirelandscreen.co.uk website. The detail in this article is uncited and seems to indicate proximity to the subject. I note also that the biographical article on the filmmaker was deleted at AfD in 2011 and an article on another of his short films is currently flagged for WP:PROD with similar concerns. Fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 1 December 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] "Dungeons and Desktops". www.taylorfrancis.com. doi:10.1201/9781351273404. Retrieved 2019-11-26.

[2] Zdanowicz, Jessica; Handzel, Matthew; Vuong, Elaine (October 2013). "The Factory Times October 2013". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[3] Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

[4] Fleischer, Stephanie Owen; Wright, Susan A.; Barnes, Matthew L. (2007), Selfe, Cynthia L.; Hawisher, Gail E.; Van Ittersum, Derek (eds.), "Dungeons, Dragons, and Discretion: A Gateway to Gaming, Technology, and Literacy", Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century: Literate Connections, Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 143–160, doi:10.1057/9780230601765_9, ISBN 978-0-230-60176-5, retrieved 2019-11-26

[5] Dungeons & dragons and philosophy : read and gain advantage on all wisdom checks. Robichaud, Christopher. Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN 978-1-118-39764-0. OCLC 881280343.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[6] ttps://medicaldialogues.in/sir-ganga-ram-hospital-nephrologist-dr-ak-bhalla-conferred-with-dr-bc-roy-award/

[outlook-7] "पद्मश्री डॉ. विजय प्रकाश सिंह". outlookhindi.com. No. PadmaShree Dr Vijay Prakash Singh. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[8] "Outlook Icons of Bihar : Outlook Hindi". https://www.outlookhindi.com/. Retrieved 4 December 2019. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)

[TNN-9] Bhatia, Banjot Kaur (9 August 2014). "17 lakh Hepatitis C patients in Bihar | Patna News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. Retrieved 29 November 2019.

[10] "City round-up". telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[11] "Dr. Vijay Prakash". BInvolved. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[12] "Dr Vijay Prakash". NASH24x7. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

[Medical_Council_of_India-13] "Medical Council of India". Medical Council of India. 2015. Archived from the original on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]