Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 23

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Canadian Action Party. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fogal

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

Does not meet WP:N; heavily biased and unsourced article; former leader of a fringe party, not notable. RoyalObserver (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canadian Action Party. I ran a Proquest news archive search. The sole profile I found was "A party leader comes back to her roots, Taylor, Mark. Moose Jaw Times Herald 13 Jan 2006 [1]. She did get a little coverage back in the day: Ideological Bedfellows: Despite coming from opposite sides of the political spectrum, activist Connie Fogal and former Vancouver councillor Jonathan Baker have united to give independent candidates a VOICE. The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C. [Vancouver, B.C]31 Aug 1996 "...activist-lawyer hitConnie hitFogal and former centre-right councillor Jonathan...". Very little.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. This article was created in 2004, which means it's a leftover from our old notability standards for politicians under which being a party leader, even of a minor fringe party like Canadian Action, was considered an "inherent" notability freebie that conferred automatic inclusion rights and thereby exempted the person from having to be reliably sourced as long as her existence as a party leader was verifiable. But those aren't the standards that apply today: a party leader now has to have enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, which fringe party leaders often don't. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2018 (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) 12:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia–Harvard football rivalry

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations which reference an existing rivalry. So rivalry claim is not currently established. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage") -I found only [2].

Non-GNG callouts:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article was created over 2 years ago, and it has never had any significant content or sourcing. Is there evidence that either college considers this a major rivalry in comparison to their other rivalries with fellow Ivy League schools? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not even sure this is a real thing; does the mere presence of an intra-conference series constitute a "rivalry"? In any case, there don't appear to be any sources that identify it as such. Chetsford (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article without any content. Need a reason? Ignore all rules and do what you need to do to make Wikipedia better. If it turns out it really is a noteworthy rivalry, there's no reason it cannot be re-created later when there is actual content for it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is an unsourced, one-sentence sub-stub asserting in its entirety: "X is an American football rivalry between Y and Z." I'm persuaded by Paul McDonald's argument about the complete lack of meaningful content. As Paul observes, if someone down the road digs and finds a solid basis for an article (be it as a "rivalry" or a highly notable series), deletion should be without prejudice to such efforts. However, as it stands, there is no basis for believing this series is a notable rivalry or otherwise sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 01:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Interestingly enough, I considered most Ivy League teams from neighboring states to be rivalries. After looking, this definitely isn't one... and the article isn't too detailed either (no real sources pointing to a rivalry). Redditaddict69 22:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 22:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaSphere

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

non notable object, promotional article from COI SPA editor. almost no references in respectable publications Rayman60 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sha.

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

non notable artist, promotional article from COI SPA editor. almost no references in respectable publications Rayman60 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits in either Standard, Presse, Salzburger Nachrichten, Wiener Zeitung, or Falter archives. Brief mention in a 2001 issue of Profil but nothing substantial. German Wikipedia article seems to have avoided deletion [3] mainly due to a few local circlejerk awards that thankfully do not count here. Damvile (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia appears to be the best source for this material, as in there aren't any others.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can't find anything beyond Sha.'s website. Even with the names of the projects and awards, I can't find anything. Nothing on ZKM was the key for me. I would be happy to change my vote if someone was able to verify any of these claims. --Theredproject (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a primary source for the Ars Electronica Centre residency that 'involved' ZKM. Not very useful.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2018 (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 keep. North America1000 00:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robinson (Canadian artist)

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

Artist whose notability is outright not proven. While there is an assertion his work is part of significant permanent museum collections (WP:NARTIST), the sources that are used to back this up are inaccessible (Firefox 61.0.2) or, in one case, is an archive link to an overview page as opposed to the gallery itself. Neither general or news-specific Google results return anything worthwhile for notability as far as I can tell. There is a Canadian Encyclopaedia article on him that was removed from later revisions, but this in and of itself can't be the sole source. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please do WP:Before next time. I confirmed the Peterborough museum permanent collection, and added a link to his profile on the Canadian Artist index run by the Department of Heritage. Nom seems to think the artist is faking the claims. A little research shows this Métis artist was well known in the 80s. Also, if you were in the Canadian encyclopedia once, that is all that matters. Notability is not transitory. I will add more refs a it later.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here is his writeup as published on a an online gallery web page published by the Legislature of Ontario: ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a number of references. I confirmed the Peterborough Art Gallery and the Canada Council Art Bank as permanent collections, which means he meets WP:ARTIST. He also does have a Canadian Encyclopedia entry, which I added back as a source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do NOT think the claims are faked, and nowhere in my rationale did I even imply it. I also did do WP:BEFORE and Google gave me nothing viable. If you'd read my rationale you'd've realised I did my due diligence. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:47, 24 August 2018 (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 Reorganize. It's clear that there's no consensus to delete this outright. Even among the people arguing to keep, there's agreement that a single all-encompassing list is impractical. So, we're looking at some kind of reorganization, i.e. some kind of "list of lists" hierarchy. There's no agreement on the details of how that would work. The main reason for AfD is to decide if we should delete something, and we're clearly not going to do that, so the rest of the discussion should take place on Talk:List of villages in India. If, after sufficient discussion, there's no resolution, I would suggest treating this as No Consensus for WP:RENOM purpuses. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in India

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

Way out of scope. This enormous list includes only a tiny fraction of all Indian villages we've got article about, in its incompleteness is actively misleading, it's a maintenance nightmare, and even if the Herculean efforts of making it complete are expended, it's unclear what purpose would be served. – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that deletion is only among several options; another one is to turn the list (back) into a list of lits, a metalist for Category:Lists of villages in India, though this is contingent on whether we do want to have the individual lists of villages in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and retarget to Lists of villages in India; it's not reasonable to have 500k entries on a page, but a list of lists could work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Lists of villages in India. I agree with the nominator that it isn't really feasible for this to be a list, given the number of items any comprehensive list would have. We could return this to a "list of lists", as it has been in the past (not forgetting to list it at List of lists of lists!), but I don't see any particular reason why that would be preferable to just redirecting to the existing category – what could a list of lists include that the category doesn't? By way of comparison, we don't have a List of living people, because it would be a thankless and Sisyphean task, but we do have a redirect to Category:Living people, which we can reasonably expect to provide the reader with what they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Living people is a maintenance category purely for BLP reasons, as its description explains. So it is not a relevant comparison at all. Your comment is also contra WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'd like a more relevant (though probably less familiar) comparison, any of the 873 Category:Redirects to category space would do equally well, especially any of the 161 redirects in that category that begin "List of". WP:NOTDUP would perhaps be an issue if I were claiming that lists should in every case redirect to categories, but I'm obviously not. Instead, I'm considering that section's caution that "lists may include features not available to categories", and have concluded that this list cannot contain any such features – hence the rhetorical question, "what could a list of lists include that the category doesn't?" – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't need to do anything that the category can't, the whole point of NOTDUP is that maintaining parallel forms of indexing is appropriate even without any such special pleading. BUT...a list could include everything on one page that the category structure divides into subcategories, provide alternate or even multiple methods of organization, and include annotations, such as brief executive summaries of each of the lists linked to (definition of district, count of villages, etc.). So even if you were correct in expecting that a list jump through extra hoops to justify its existence, this one can jump. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the list as it stands is completely impractical. I am undecided as to whether a category, a list of lists, or some other option is the next best thing. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But edit to make it a list of subpages such as list of villages in subdivisions of India. Renaming it as List of lists of villages in India seems appropriate so new editors add nothing but lists.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: WP:OSE -- Europe's total population is much smaller, and more urbanized (read: less likely to live in settlements called "villages"), than India's, and that LISTOFLISTS is a garbage stub anyway, so presenting it as something to be striven for (why else would you link it?) is questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Marcotte

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

Sources are routine news coverage in the local news - articles are mostly about the organizations involved rather than about the subject of this biography. The "40 under 40" award is just a local event (doesn't meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" criteria at WP:BIO). There simply isn't any significant coverage in independent sources. The article was created by User:Acumen.pr (an obvious username connection to Marcotte's business) and all other content contributors to the article are single-purpose accounts indicating WP:COI or autobiography. Deli nk (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just went through the edit history and you're probably right - most of the edits on the page come from the same sockfarm and include such situations as the time they put a legal threat on the page while edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (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. Closed by original nominator, as the film has now been released and has reviews in reliable sources, as noted in the discussion. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 14:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Thayu?

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

Non-notable film. StrikerforceTalk 15:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Strikerforce,

Please remove each errors from the Top of the Article Shu Thayu Shu Thayu (film) as I have improved it now with reliable sources

Radadiyageet (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone wants the article restored to their userspace, drop me a line Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a single reliable reference presented despite being tagged since 2009. There is no evidence that these names are derived from anything celtic or mythological - they appear to be inventions of commercial organisations to sell collector cards, toys, films, books, games etc. to children and the young at heart. This appears to be a massive list of original research. Nothing here even hints that the concept of Celtic mythology in modern culture exists in modern culture as something that can be discussed and written about. I would have at least expected some cross links to Celtic mythologyFails WP:GNG by a very wide mile.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely a coatrack of mentions. The article discusses neither Celtic mythology nor popular culture. While an encyclopaedic article at this title would be possible, this isn't it. SpinningSpark 23:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2018 (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 Deleted as G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffries East Projects

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

Fails WP:GNG. "Jeffries East" is mentioned in just two of the four sources cited [5] and [6], and it is a trivial mention. I located this source which does provide some history, however, this housing project does not appear particularly notable, and has no GNIS entry. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 00:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almatari Family

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

Likely created by the family, WP:AUTO. A WP:BEFORE does not show the article meets WP:GNG Kees08 (Talk) 03:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. This has obviously changed for the better since I nominated it -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord

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

Fails WP:GNG, and google shows mostly blogs and small bits of information on the subject. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2018 (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 (G5). MER-C 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LASGIIDI

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Includes puffery. » Shadowowl | talk 19:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technological revival

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

Unreferenced personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ocer Campion Jesuit College

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo. Based on related sources. The Banner talk 21:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite the 2017 RFC, consensus seems to still be that we keep secondary schools as long as they exist. This school appears to exist. Pburka (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have sufficient evidence that this school exists. And I have just found these independent sources, which I ask someone to please add:
MEGA FM article on "Ocer Campion emerges best in Acholi sub region".
USAID award for OCER.
KU Medical Center announces training opportunity at OCER.
Jzsj (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources is saying anything substantial about the school. The Banner talk 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete Promotional listing without sufficient sourcing. No we don't just keep every school that exists, especially if the article fails WP:NOTPROMO. Most promo removed, and the sourcing is a tiny bit better. The sources don't have good independence, which is an issue, but the article can probably be improved from here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly, this is more Jesuit spam, sourced entirely by Jesuit and Catholic organizations reporting about other Jesuits & Catholics. As someone wisely said at another AFD, what is the difference between something like the Catholic Reporter and the Plastic Bottle Reporter? They are both trade magazines. More than half of the sources here are the org itself. In the absence of independent RS, this is promotion that fails GNG and NORG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be a tiny bit more specific, the sources given here are
  • "Who we are" (Ocer Campion Jesuits)
  • easternafricajesuits.org
  • ocercampion.org (Jesuits)
  • campionforever.org (Jesuit fan club)
  • USAID 2011 Report
  • jesuitmissions.ie ... (Jesuits)
  • ecojesuit.com (ecologically-minded Jesuits)
  • georgetown.edu (a semi-decent source)
  • Kansas City Medical Center. (dead link) 96.127.243.251 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you mention Variety (founded 1905). Look at the list of article sources above. Six of nine sources are Jesuit organizations. These organizations are not even remotely similar to a hundred-year old journalistic source like Variety. Nor do they have a history of independent quality journalism, with multiple significant awards for journalism, as Variety does. Nor are they staffed by highly trained journalists as Variety is. I just checked and Variety has 41 editors. Not 41 journalists, forty-one editors. Nor do the sources above have the 17 million monthly visitors that variety.com has. There is an enormous difference, I am sure you will agree, between Variety and ecojesuit.com, or easternafricajesuits.org. The organizations above are just trade buddies in the business of being Jesuits, and of basically no journalistic value.
Regarding the NCR, even if the National Catholic reporter is a sound organization, it is not the same as an independent journalistic source like the NY Times or Chicago Tribune. As the NCR says on its "about us" page, it has an explicit agenda and vision: "We see a church alive with the Spirit, its members working around the world to embody and spread the message of the Gospels while relying on NCR as a trusted provider of information and a source of inspiration... We attempt to contribute to the Catholic conversation by supporting freedom, honesty, openness and shared responsibility within the NCR reader community, the communities in which we live and the church", blah blah de blah. It's all about an agenda to promote Christ. And that has been a terrific business all around the world for centuries. But that business is not the same as independent journalism. One is directly relatable to encyclopedic practice, and the other is pushing a specific agenda. As Wikipedians we should be discounting and skeptical of the ones pushing an agenda, while we rely instead on the ones that are directly encyclopedic. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but of course remove the spam, as we always try to do. Almost all secondary schools with more than a name have in practice been kept, except for rare aberrations, Most school articles are spammy when submitted; they're easy to trim. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 28 August 2018 (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. No prejudice against recreating a new biography that adheres closer to policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eloisa Jayloni

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Created by someone who is ACPERM evading. » Shadowowl | talk 18:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 23 August 2018 (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. North America1000 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional gangs

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

For the most part original research. Full of non-notable listcruft and better served by Category:Fictional gangs. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as complement to category per WP:CLN and as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP, and there are clearly enough entries with articles to merit a list regardless of whether editors decide that only notable entries should be included (not a concern for this AFD to resolve). The nomination is also contrary to WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, complaining of what the content is "for the most part" or of other fixable problems. We do not delete content because it includes flaws (even assuming that is a correct assertion here), nor do we delete lists just because they currently include entries that some editors think they should not (again, the non-notable entry issue need not be resolved here). We should not be nominating content for deletion if we are unwilling or unable to consider its potential. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more observation...nominations like this essentially try to turn CLN upside down. It's not necessary to make a special case for why we'd have a list as well as a category. But if you're going to argue that a list should be deleted even though the category is fine, you do need to go out of your way to explain why the two should be treated differently, while remembering that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the !votes of Andrew D. and Postdlf. It's not "original research" in any meaningful sense to note major characters, plot elements and features of setting. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the page could use stricter inclusion criteria; the gang should at least be mentioned on the linked page to the fictional work it is from. (if The Simpsons actually have a prison gang called the "Sunday Funnies", it's probably a one-line gag). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2018 (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) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Cities

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

Non notable game, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current article as failing GNG per above and create Redirect to free city disambiguation page as the plural is a reasonable search term including Template:R from other capitalisation. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game doesn't meet any sort of notability guideline and sources are lacking. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not to pile on here, but having read the Kotaku article that represents the most significant coverage of this game, it actually makes a somewhat strong case that it's significant, calling it "a hit" and "closest...ever come to mainstream". However, given that this genre of games itself seems to be very niche and there's no coverage other than that, I think it's still best to delete, since a hit in an obscure slice of a tiny genre (the justification for "hit" is that its subreddit has 3,200 subscribers, but that's not really a high bar). There may be potential for a future article if more sources end up covering it though, which seems like a possibility given the controversial and questionable moral nature of the game. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:54, 30 August 2018 (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 Unification of Germany. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German Unification Wars

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

coverage included in Unification of Germany. Everything there is fully sourced. This is duplicated, and largely unsourced. auntieruth (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Nom is correct. The content within is fairly limited, and is smaller than even the summary sections in Unification of Germany. Additionally that article has major contentforks to each individual component of this article. Even if this was expanded it would be serving as an unwarranted duplicative article. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 23 August 2018 (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) 21:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tibor Várkonyi

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

The only verifiable facts from the references are that Varkonyi is a genealogist who has written a book. Most of the references are links to the front pages of websites which make no reference to him. None of the claims amount to notability. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion is drawing in new editors from the Hungarian wiki I'll be a bit more explicit & link to the policies - this biography of a living person does not show notability under either the general notability guidance or the guidance for biographies. Cabayi (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Verifiable facts" from the references are: full book texts (ref. 7, 10, 14, 17); full article texts (ref. 12, 13, 16); article abstract (ref. 9). Works: 4 books, 5 historical novel, 6 genealogy articles. Is this enough for you? Gondai (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gondai, no. We need reliable, verifiable, independent sources about the subject, not by the subject. Cabayi (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Gondai is a sock of the author - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Temérdek. Cabayi (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG could only find a passing mention as a commentator in a newsite [12]--DBigXrayᗙ 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . when I run this name it through a news archive search, a find a Tibor Várkonyi who was a journalist who was in Hanoi in 1967 and was quoted in an AP story. (before our Tibor was born,) and a Tibor Várkonyi cited by BBC monitoring (a service where the BBD posts thumbnail summaries of the day's news in Hungarian,) in 2012 in it's entirety "Commentary by Tibor Varkonyi says Fidesz is afraid of election defeat despite poll figures, wants to secure victory before elections with preliminary voter registration." this is probably the same citation User:DBigXray I have no idea whether this is our boy Tibor. But even if is, this article fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Passing mentions in random sites. GenuineArt (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2018 (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) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cominar

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. The article, as it stands, has no independent, third party reliable source. All I can locate are a lot of trivial/routine coverage e.g. earnings statements and other announcements. Nothing which meets NCORP sourcing requirements. Jbh Talk 13:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that, long, blockquote says is – if a company is listed there is a good chance there will be adequate sources so one should make sure to look. I looked and found none. Have you looked? Did you find any? If so will you share them? If they meet the NCORP requirements I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Otherwise I do not understand the policy based relevance of your quote to your !vote – it has nothing to do with notability criteria and seems like an awful lot of text to ask about whether a good WP:BEFORE was done. Jbh Talk 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually an argument counter to your statement - it makes you further obliged to provide sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8-°- Jbh Talk 19:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are commonly traded on major stock exchanges, even though they aren't "stocks" or even "companies" by the usual usage. REITs are essentially real estate mutual funds. Any guideline on how companies with stock trading on major exchanges should exclude REITs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted hatting.

    Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says collapsing is permitted for off-topic posts. My post is not off-topic. It directly addresses the notability concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination.

    The guideline says, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You do not have my permission to collapse my "keep" rationale and insert your personal opinion ("Possible, but disputed, sourcing") in between. Your collapsing of Eastmain (talk · contribs)'s quote and inserting your comment in between is also unacceptable as you did not receive Eastmain's permission either.

    From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I object to your editing my comments. You should stop.

    Cunard (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Cunard points out, WP:NCORP explicitly mentions using analysts' reports as evidence of notability, this would seem to me exactly what was envisioned. Further, the newspaper articles, Globe & Mail especially, aren't just routine listings of numbers, but evaluation of the company's business strategy, opportunities, and threats. MarginalCost (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I can't see any reason not to, but I don't at all like the look of the creator's edit history and his statement that he starts an article by taking information from the company's own website.Deb (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since this article was tagged for speedy, then normal deletion, I have continued to work on improving it. (It's literally my first stab at an article. They were a red link in an article about Quebec companies and I use to visit one of their malls while in college, hence the minor interest.) I have added a number of citations from the Financial Post newspaper and another source (Lexpert.ca, a law site) related to acquisitions, asset disposals, and fund raising. The outstanding items are from 1998 or earlier where online sources are rare. Hopefully I have managed to bring the article up to standards. ktrueman (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (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) 12:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Axel Lind

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

In over 4 years we still only have a collection of primary or trivial sources, some of which are broke.) Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per this presumably reliable source, modern reflexologists base their techniques on other people, not Lind. Given the lack of reliable sourcing in the article, and a reference I just found that said that only 3 people worldwide were authorized to perform his techniques (or something to that effect), I don't see any way to keep it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SarekOfVulcan. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SarekOfVulcan. No mention of Lind in a reliable source on the background of the practice is a bad sign for the purported "father of Nordic reflexology". Nanophosis (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we snow this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's been a full week, it can get a regular close without invoking WP:SNOW... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of that reason, it has not been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2018 (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) 19:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mingo Chin

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

Fails notability, Non-notable person, badly unreliable press releases.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Rathod

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

This stub almost qualifies for WP:BLPPROD except for the unreliable reference to IMDB.

Google search finds this Wikipedia article and many vanity hits (Facebook, LinkedIn) and fancruft. No evidence of critical attention.

Does not satisfy general notability or entertainment notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A month ago this article had an extensive filmography, paragraphs of text, and 3 non-imdb sources (whose Reliability I don't know about) but was then substantialky reduced in size with comment "(none of these are rs)". Mouse-overs of a few of the films listed show her listed in the lead paragraph of four out of the five I checked. Better sources may be needed, but it looks as if the article should be kept on the basis of starring/featuring in multiple films. PamD 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She seems often to be referred to as just "Kiran" eg in Winner (2003 film) and here, which will complicate the finding of sources. PamD 09:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found and added one reliable source (The Hindu), which supports one statement in the article. I have also removed all the unsourced BLP content (ie all the rest, bar the lead sentence), and commented it out from the info box. I have left the Filmography untouched, as the links to articles on the films seem to confirm the info that Kiran appeared in those films, though it's technically unsourced. This article has been tagged since Nov 2017 as needing sources, and none have been supplied (until this one), but the woman does appear notable. None of Jupitus Smart's links seem to work for me. PamD 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has now added some content with Reliable Sources which I think establish her notability thoroughly. PamD 23:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @PamD:. I seem to be getting rusty at this. The actual links were [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2018 (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 (and if I wave this wand and say the magic words ... *piff* *puff* *poof* ... the article is kept!). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Coast Association of Magicians

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

This article has apparently been unsourced for eleven years. While there are a good number of passing mentions of the society ("[x] was a member of the ..."), I don't see any of the sort of extensive in-depth coverage in various independent reliable sources that would demonstrate its notability and allow us to write a proper article about it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we have no sources of any kind that discuss it, which seems to be the case, it clearly would ipso facto fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I admit the sources are few, they aren't nil, and I think there is a strong likelihood there are others off line. The organization was founded in 1933, so a fair fraction of news about it will be from before the Internet age. Harry Houdini's widow attended the third annual meeting in 1935.[21][22] Here is an indepth article about the latest, 2018, annual meeting, [23], The Bakersfield Californian and here is a less indepth article.[24], KBFX-CD. Only one indepth reliable source, unfortunately, and we often want 2 or more to meet WP:GNG, but I am pretty sure there are at least a few out there, for some of the meetings between 1933 and 2018 - they were not always in Bakersfield - so I'm saying "keep", and I hope sufficient others will too. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator). I created the (sourced) stub over 10 years ago,[25] and it has waxed and waned over the years.[26] I haven't paid much attention to it, but a glance at article history will show that it has been several times larger than its current state. The article could definitely use expansion from an experienced editor, unfortunately I'm short on wiki-time at the moment or I'd do it. I would agree that there was a fair bit of unsourced information in it at one point (not added by me), but in my opinion it has been stripped down to a far smaller stub now than it should be. The topic is notable, this association is well-known within the magician community, has international recognition, and a prestigious set of awards.[27] Sources do exist.[28] --Elonka 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the organization has been in existence since 1933 and has influenced the magic community and fostered the careers of countless magicians including myself. I am not an expert at Wikipedia but over the past few months I have been researching the history of the organization. Most of the history is prior to the internet and the majority of the books, magazines and article I have sourced are not for public offering. Magazines such as Genii and the Diebox are online but not available for public viewing. The PCAM is mentioned often in these well respected publications. A quick internet search will still result in mentions of the PCAM such as [29] or [30], [31] The successful TV duo the Property Brothers mention it in their book It Takes Two: Our Story [32]ShawnFarquhar (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I went ahead and expanded the article and added several sources.[33] It could still use more cleanup, but hopefully this will help to verify the claim of notability. --Elonka 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So, now the page has a good deal more unreferenced content than before, still without any vestige of a citation. I took a look at the proposed sources:
  1. Scott, Jonathan; Scott, Drew (4 April 2016). Dream Home: The Property Brothers’ Ultimate Guide to Finding & Fixing Your Perfect House. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 0544715675.
  2. http://www.conjuringcredits.com/doku.php?id=misc:pcam_publications
  3. https://www.kcet.org/history-society/off-the-boulevard-of-broken-dreams-the-knickerbocker-hotels-haunted-history
  4. http://auctions.potterauctions.com/pacific_coast_association_of_magicians_group_portr-lot11227.aspx
  5. https://www.bakersfield.com/entertainment/magic-the-gathering-convention-brings-conjurers-to-bakersfield/article_c131b222-9b67-11e8-b356-2b0f2668c67b.html
  6. https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/bakersfield-hosts-magician-convention-for-first-time-in-30-years
  7. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/aimee-heckel/behind-the-scenes-with-on_b_6118954.html
  8. https://www.surreynowleader.com/entertainment/honoured-for-sleight-of-hand/
  9. http://www.insidemagic.com/magicnews/2006/08/cameron-fisk-pcam-gold-medal-winner-magic-success/
As far as I can see,
(1) is book about fixing up houses, with no mention of this organisation
(2) is somebody's website, not WP:RS
(3) is a reliable source with a brief mention
(4) is an auction listing for a photograph of the same meeting mentioned in (3), no value as a reference
(5) is local press coverage of a meeting, presumably from a press-release, most of it sourced to the organisation itself (not available in Europe, accessed through this link)
(6) is more of the same, probably from the same press-release
(7) is a reliable source with a passing mention (I said above that there are several of these)
(8) is a passing mention in local-boy-makes-good local press article
(9) is a blog post on somebody's website, not WP:RS
That does not seem to add up to the "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources" required by WP:NCORP. If those sources were tabulated as in the example in WP:ORGCRIT, only (3) might conceivably classify as "pass". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the article has references. Just because it doesn't have inline citations, doesn't mean it's unreferenced. If there's a specific thing you'd like to challenge, you are welcome to do so by adding a {{fact}} tag, but I think you'll find that all the current references match the current information. --Elonka 00:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Scott book, it is sourced to page 87, which I have added to the citation. Thank you for the Google Book link, but please keep in mind that it is not 100% searchable. In this case, page 87 is not available at Google Books. --Elonka 16:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Elonka; what Gbooks search normally does is identify the page where the text is found even if that page is not available in preview; in this case, it seems that it has not. Since you have the book, perhaps you could tell us exactly what it says about this association? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation

The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book has no discernible claim of notability and no sources other than the book itself. A Google search turned up nothing useful to add to the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources; let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies NBOOK with multiple book reviews. The fact the book has gone through multiple editions is relevant to TBK. The article has been expanded since nomination and could be expanded further still. James500 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • James500, I had seen the same reviews, but they all seem to be passing mentions, not the in-depth coverage specified by WP:NBOOK. Which sources / reviews do you believe satisfy notability? Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reviews are significant coverage. I am sure you can see them, but try, in particular, the book reviews in "N.D. Journal of Legislation" and "Teaching elementary language arts: a literature approach" and "Church and Synagogue Libraries". There is also coverage in "American Flint" and "CPA Journal", in particular, and a considerable degree of anthologisation. None of this could be described as a passing mention. Incidentally, the actual wording of the guidelines is "non-trivial treatment" not "in depth" and it is not a licence to demand unreasonably large amounts of coverage. By long standing consensus which has always been followed at AfD the correct approach to criteria 1 of NBOOK is that two book reviews of normal length will suffice. (Indeed the guideline says "This includes book reviews"). I count at least three book reviews of normal length, so this AfD is over. James500 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Richard Hyman (aka Dick Hyman) (b 1904 or 1907) also published other reviewed books and publications (such as "Looney Laws" (1946 or 1947) partly compiled from his "It's the Law" column in American Magazine), is included in biographical dictionaries (such as Contemporary Authors), and appears to be notable. James500 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • My motives in making this article: firstly, I remember the book being somewhat recognizable among people I used to know in the '90s and early 00's. I was given one of the later editions of the book as a birthday gift one year. Last week I picked up the book and I suddenly began to get the creeping suspicion that this book of 600 nonsensical laws might not be as credible as I and those around me back in the Clinton years once thought it was. The idea for the book seems to be based on the author's incredulity about a strange law he encountered forty years prior to publishing. My guess is, after that incident, the author just wrote down whatever random strange laws people told him existed-- meaning: no fact checking. In the book, the author says he has a file of 2000 laws, but that he picked the best 600. Originally I was hoping to find a snopes-type article that would shoot down this book, but I didn't find it. -- I was hoping that by creating this wikipedia article, someone would eventually add sources to articles that will have done the homework to confirm or deny both the popularity of the book and the factuality of the statements in the book. -- If there is anything I can do to keep the article going, let me know. If it really isn't worth it, I will not be offended if it needs to be deleted.Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't need to be deleted: The book is plainly notable. (For that matter, so is the author). From what I can gather Hyman published many books and magazine articles on this subject over a long period of time. His books have been reviewed by university law reviews (amongst others) and stocked by university law libraries such as NYU eg [34]. I haven't found any indication that Hyman's book is not trustworthy yet, and I suggest that speculation about fact checking is not helpful, particularly as it has no relevance to notability, since the coverage (eg in university law reviews) is obviously reliable. What might help is to add to the article those book reviews and similar coverage not already included. Hyman's books on this subject are obviously very popular because of the large number of editions and sequels published. You would not publish a new edition of or sequel to a book unless the previous ones had sold well. James500 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where else they might be available, but the four I linked to are 1) a four-column article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2) a two-column article in the Anderson Herald, 3) a three-column article in the Journal and Courier (Lafayette, Indiana), 4) a three-column article in The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania) › Mortee talk 11:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The others are book reviews and they are not remotely trivial. Criteria 1 of NBOOK is completely clear about this. James500 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not. Ref 1 (HeinOnline) is about a different book entirely (The American Legislative Process, by Keefe and Ogul), perhaps the reference is wrong. The link matches the page number and volume in the ref. Ref 2 (CPA Journal) mentions the title only in a footnote, as one of several books by this author on this subject. Refs 3-6 are the newspapers.com refs. Ref 7 is the book itself, clearly not an independent source. Ref 8 is a list of interesting books at the University of Wisconsin's library (by that library), the coverage of the bookYou can also find books that take a look at the lighter side of the law, such as Legally Correct Fairy Tales and The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation. These works are located on the third floor in the call number range KF/184..., as well as, on the second floor at call numbers PN/6231/L4.... is clearly trivial. Ref 9 is a Wordpress blog that simply quotes from the book. Ref 10 is some quotes in an interview on TheDailyBell, a site thatfocuses its news on deprogramming the lies from the corrupt state and complicit mainstream media. None of these references are sufficient to meet GNG, and none are book reviews. You are simply wrong and I would like you to retract that statement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, we have completely misunderstood each other. I thought you were talking about the book reviews in GBooks, not the references in the article. James500 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2018 (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 fictional swords. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swords in fiction

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

No critical commentary, single source, very much WP:IINFO -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TNT delete as just someone's essay. Now, someone could write a real article sourced to real literary analysis of how swords function as a literary trope, but this is not even vaguely that article. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge list to this title Mostly per User:Hijiri88. The list is patent fancruft, and the article, while not having many sources, is still encyclopedic, unlike the list. It is important to note that the article was created as a suitable replacement for the fancrufty list. AFD is not cleanup, and this nomination was made solely on the notion that the current version of the article is not well sourced. WP:SOFIXIT should have been applied, not a spurious deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm in favour of preserving the page history at the active (non-redirect) title; whether this involves deleting Swords in fiction and moving List of fictional swords, or not deleting anything and just switching the titles and redirecting the "list" title, or a histmerge doesn't matter to me. However, I don't think this AFD should be closed as either "redirect; discussion of moving the original page to this title is not an issue for AFD and can be discussed elsewhere", since I don't think AFD should have been used in this instance in the first place. If the closer wants to say "no consensus; please use RM" that would be okay, I guess. But it would be better if the issue was resolved from this discussion, and simply redirecting this title would make the issue worse, not better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 26 August 2018 (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 English Montreal School Board. There seems to be a clear consensus that the article does not have enough RS coverage to meet the notability guidelines, but that it still warrants a redirect to the school board page. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westmount Park School

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

A ton of WP:SPS and what isn't SPS is not mentioning the school directly, but pointing to statistics. Reads as a borderline advertisement. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - to the school board. I don't understand how this passed AfC, as it had been redirected in the prior AfD. Redirect is generally the way lower schools are handled (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). As the nominator is an admin, and my vote is to restore the consensus reached in the prior AfD, perhaps she could look at the previous article with an eye to withdrawing this, and restoring the redirect as editing against consensus? John from Idegon (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - thought I should specifically ping @L293D:, though it'll have flashed up on their watchlist, to see if they could give us their views. I have some thoughts of my own, but would like to see theirs first. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davey2010, Leonard Cohen and Norma Shearer attended this institution during the early 20th century. Reference sourced and added August 29, 2018 to support notability guideline. Nufwps18 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC-4)
  • Redirect (per policy - alternatives to deletion). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Surprised at the eagerness to delete relevant new content of a +100 year Canadian school and building. As an open source reference site, it is best to allow other users to contribute to the growth of this page (considering the page is less than a month old). This is one of only 2 public schools in this community where an English language school is a dying breed in a French city. Furthermore, there are notable alumnus to be confirmed prior to publishing. Nufwps18 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC-4)
Hi Nufwps18 - while the majority of page growth is after its creation, it has to meet minimal standards from the beginning (otherwise we have nothing to prove the information we are making public). While its scarcity may or may not make it important, without reliable sources demonstrating that it can't be proved and can't provide any notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given the guidelines by which the comments above have based their "redirect" recommendation, why does Wikipedia allow all movies, TV shows to be featured? Those types of pages are commercial and serve to advertise. Should those pages also be "redirected" to film company pages based on the criteria used? I believe a 104 year old public institution with a rather rich history still to be unlocked adds value to Wikipedia. Nufwps18 (talk) 9:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC-4)
    • Notability isn't based on anyone's opinion of how important something is. It's based on whether the subject has been written about in detail. It seems to me that "a rather rich history still to be unlocked" is a fancy way of saying those sources do not exist. I'd say WP:TOOSOON might apply, but honestly, no one has written about it in 104 years, why would we expect that to change now? The standard practice outlined by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES works perfectly here. Grammar, elementary or basic schools are the oldest and most common type of school. Except under rare circumstances, individual basic schools are seldom written about in detail. And most often when they are, it is for reasons external to their educational purpose, such as being architecturally significant, or being a part of a significant historic event. John from Idegon (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John from Idegon, ultimately, I hope this page is given an opportunity to grow with time. Having read WP:TOOSOON, would Star Wars: Episode IX not be classified as such as it literally seems too soon to create a Wikipedia page for an unreleased film (Dec 20, 2019... 1 year 4 months before release). Granted there are many fans of the epic sci-fi franchise, but there are fan sites for discussion and studio social media feeds for pre-release info. Having reviewed WP:INHERIT, the fact this school was originally a high school from 1914-1961 with Leonard Cohen attending begins to add relevance to this topic. Film maker Paul Almond, director of the documentary Seven Up! also attended in the 1940s when the school was Westmount Junior High School. I do appreciate the review process and hope to add supporting reference information from RS. Sourcing digital material for older institutions sometimes just takes an individual to pull the basics together and verify the first few nuggets to get the ball rolling. Cheers.Nufwps18 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC-4)
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) 13:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banstead Woods Parkrun

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

This individual parkrun event is not notable. The sources listed as not RS. I redirected this article to parkrun but was reverted. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Natureium (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a textbook example of a trivial mention. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is still at least mentioned. I will try to find better sources for the page. I really think these pages have a place on Wikipedia. I do not see how an event which has accomodated many thousands of people is not notable. Middledistance99 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. State of the article has been improved to a quality level. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Motocross des Nations

2018 Motocross des Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very much WP:CRYSTAL until the event occurs. Lineups are being predicted, and the sourcing is questionable (1 seems to be a sports reporting site with only 20k following). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We do make articles about upcoming sporting events, see Category:Scheduled sports events. No question that the event is notable, so I see no reason to delete it. Delete because you think the lineups are predicted, is not a valid reason to the delete the whole article, just the part that can't be verified. Btw, google search "2018 Motocross of Nations team" and you find out that most of the teams are announced. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found more sourcing taking it through a google search. The problem is/was the sourcing was crap beforehand, and still now, the use of multiple secondary sources is possible, it just needs to be done. Efforts should be to move to multiple sources for the information, not just the two main sites I saw when I nominated it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current state of sourcing in an article isn't cause for AfD unless better sources can't be found. Aren't you supposed to Google before nominating (at minimum) per WP:BEFORE?? - "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; [...] If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 14:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @DeltaQuad: Which of the sources (websites) is questionable? Is it "gatedrop" or "racerxonline"? I'm not a big motocross follower, so I hadn't heard of them (or any motocross website actually) before, but still I would think they can be trusted. Can you name a lineup that may be wrong or actually not yet published? Btw, my country's lineup was published in all of the popular local sports news sites on 21-22 August. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (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) wumbolo ^^^ 12:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meera Mehta

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

Fails WP:Creative and WP:ARTIST. Article looks puff piece. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mehta received 1995 and 1997 National Awards for Craftspersons and Weavers.[40] One of her designs was chosen for the British Airways tail design as part of their "The World is a Family" promotion, and she is a well-known Indian textile designer.[41][42] I think the awards alone establish notability as there are a limited number of them given out for all artists each year. Finding sources is difficult because her notability was established before the internet was really a thing. (Procedural note: WP:CREATIVE and WP:ARTIST are the same thing). Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can't depend on the notability of an award. Such argument seems to be contradicting WP:NOTINHERITED. Can you find the reliable sources that instead significantly detail this individual? Until now I couldn't. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Ca2james. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Accesscrawl: a significant award constitutes "significant critical attention" per WP:ARTIST 4(c). It is pretty established precedent here at AfD, so Ca2james's argument is strong. --Theredproject (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not agreeing that the award is significant. Assuming it is so, still, A significant award ≠ significant critical attention. What we are looking for is persistent, in-depth coverage. Not single event. WP:ARTIST4(a) has become a significant monument. I don't think British Airways tail is a significant monument. Subject fails WP:ARTIST. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a particular country is familiar to you, "national awards" by its government surely constitute significance and notability. In fact, these national awards for master craftspersons are well-established in India, and were first instituted in 1965, as per the Government of India's Ministry of Textiles website (which is really not too difficult to find).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Rolfe

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

BLP only notable for one event. No significant coverage from reliable sources could be found. ~ Araratic | talk 06:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note NYKTNE is the creator of the article. ~ Araratic | talk 06:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he is a brave man, however one good act is generally not enough to have an biographical article. ~ Araratic | talk 06:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 23 August 2018 (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 moved to Draft:Ranjini Kalappa. This is a very close discussion, with some reasonable arguments being made in favor of keeping the page. There is also a numerical consensus in favor of deletion, asserting well-stated concerns about the sufficiency of sources used for this article. Consensus is not an exercise in head-counting, and some of these "delete" votes appear to be premised on the article needing additional development, rather than a certainty that the subject is completely non-notable. The article is therefore moved to draft to allow for the possibility of additional sources being discovered or developed and added to the article. If the article goes without improvement for six months, it will be deleted as abandoned, in accordance with the general policy for articles in draft space. bd2412 T 19:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjini Kalappa

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other similarly non-notable architects listed there. Can't create article for each. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will agree then that the Brinda Somaya page is notable, per your insights. (Brinda's page is very difficult to read as it has been engineered to be a wall of CV items.) Still of the opinion that this page is rather thin notability-wise.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after reading the article sources, it's clear that she is almost always mentioned in relation to her sister. Of the five sources given, only the Wilkes encyclopedia is more than a sentence long (and We cannot see it all as it is a GBooks snippet). Coverage is very glancing and not in-depth. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG apply.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:ThatMontrealIP: You can see the Wilkes encyclopedia by taking your person to a library that has a copy of it. Sources are not required to be online and "I can't see it" is not a valid argument for deletion. And you can read it online anyway by doing things like this and this. James500 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi James500, yes I know that sources do not need to be online! I guess I could have out that more clearly, as I meant that I did not think a single encyclopedia entry is enough, in the absence of other sources. Once I followed your snipped reading tip, I can see that the encyclopedia entry is three sentences. All it says is that she is an architect, she got a degree and returned to her hometown. It's not SIGCOV. I still have not seen SIGCOV of her as an individual architect. All of the coverage is primarily of her sister. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those that are claiming it is a well-sourced article, please look again at the sources, highlighted in blue here:
  1. the first entry is a three sentence encyclopedia article: ""Ranjini Kalappa. After receiving a B.Arch. from J.J. College of Architecture at Bombay University, Ranjini Kalappa attended Pratt Institute in New York where she received a M.Arch. A few years of experience in New York offices prepared her for the return to her native Bombay where she and her sister opened their firm, Somaya and Kalappa."
  2. the second source is one sentence about a project she did with her sister's firm.
  1. the third source says only "Indian context: Ranjini Kalappa, architecture firm together with her sister Brinda Somaya."
  1. the fourth cite duplicts the same entry, to wit: "Ranjini Kalappa. After receiving a B.Arch. from J.J. College of Architecture at Bombay University, Ranjini Kalappa attended Pratt Institute in New York where she received a M.Arch. A few years of experience in New York offices prepared her for the return to her native Bombay where she and her sister opened their firm, Somaya and Kalappa.""
  2. the fifth source says "Brinda Somaya, 56-year-old Mumbai-based architect, set up her practice, Somaya and Kalappa, in 1978 with her sister Ranjini Kalappa. They started off working from home and now Somaya has three offices and over 50 professionals working for her." and goes on to talk about her sister.
So, you see, there is no SIGCOV here. All we know from the sources is that she is an Indian architect, educated in the US, she returned to Bombay and does projects with her sisters. It's not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CRESATIVE. If you are going to call it well-sourced, I am curious to see these good sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All GNG says is that a particular 14 word random extract from a single source is not significant. It says nothing about a 59 word encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article of any length is usually accepted as significant coverage. Moreover the "Women in Architecture" article (which seems to be an online reprint of the same article in the Wilkes encyclopedia) also says her partnership with her sister is "exceptional" and has a longer 280 word article on "Somaya and Kalappa" which is her firm. And when the encyclopedia is talking about "Somaya and Kalappa", that is coverage of Ranjini Kalappa, because she is one half of that. So what we are really looking at here is a 339 word encyclopedia article about Ranjini Kalappa. For the same reason it it is misleading to talk about "her sister's firm" because it is Kalappa's firm as well. Further, BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". So it is important to bear in mind that the sources do not give exactly the same information, meaning they can be combined. And there are other sources in GBooks and GNews. James500 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's note first that the encyclopedia article is 339 characters, not 339 words. The encyclopedia entry is 56 words. I think it is extremely fair to say that the very minimal coverage above is not SIGCOV. I cannot extract anything more than the fact that she is an Indian architect who was educated in the USA and now works with her more famous sister in a firm they co-direct. There just isn't anything there that can be extracted without interpreting or synthesizing. There is no project coverage that mentions her contribution in-depth. There aren't even any interviews, which are not RS but would at least show us her role in the firm. Yes, "multiple independent sources may be combined", but these sources are nothing but passing mentions without any depth at all. As I said above, if you have independent in-depth coverage (a 3 sentence encyclopedia article is not), let's see them.Nothing remotely resembling in-depth coverage has been provided, as is clearly evident above. And of course, notability is not inherited from the firm she shares with here sister, as they do not talk about her contribution in any depth whatsoever. I think we have to agree to disagree here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was as follows: The encyclopedia article headed "Ranjini Kalappa" is 59 words long (by my count, treating abbreviations as separate words). The encyclopedia article headed "Somaya and Kalappa", which is further down the page, is 280 words long [43]. If you add those together, you get 59+280=339. That is where I got the number 339 from. By treating both of the two articles as coverage of Kalappa. I apologise if this has caused any confusion. If I said "two encyclopedia articles both about Kalappa with a combined total of 339 words between them", perhaps that would be clearer. James500 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A 28 years old insignificant entry that can be found for many other non notable architects is clearly not significant in coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
James500, OK i get it: you added a 28 year old encyclopedia article that totals 59 words to a separate 280 word encyclopedia about her firm, and called that a 339 word encyclopedia article about her. I'm not sure how that helps your argument. Again, the fact that she is a named partner in a firm does not make her notable. If the firm is notable, we would have an article about the firm. See WP:NOTINHERITED. For individuals we need in-depth coverage of the individual in multiple reliable sources. Her sister has that, but Ranjini does not. The plain fact that we cannot easily find out anything about her other than the very basics is ample evidence that she is not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: I want to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED here, as working as an architect always means working in a firm. The firm literally has her name. It is a proxy for her and her sister's work. It is not her mother's notability. The firm is not a subsidiary of a global firm that is the notable one. --Theredproject (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to disagree on that today. Virtually all coverage of this architect talks about her sister's role in the firm and not Ranjini Kalappa's role. The most obvious test here is to look at this page , and then her sister's. Somaya has many awards, honorary degrees and independent accolades. Ranjini Kalappa does not have any, as far as I can see.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources to justify the creation. Sources are either passing mention or insignificant to ensure notability as MontrealIP's argument shows. Orientls (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I interlibrary loaned a copy of that section from the Wilkes encyclopedia. It just arrived. This encyclopedia, which appears to have been the authoritative encyclopedia about architecture at the time, only listed two architects for India: the two we have discussed here. The section I received back via ILL has 5 other architects listed. Every single one of them has a Wikipedia page: Signe Hornborg, Elsi Borg, Gae Aulenti, Solange d'Herbez de la Tour, Masako Hayashi. Accesscrawl Given that you earlier said "There are many other similarly non-notable architects listed there. Can't create article for each" and "A 28 years old insignificant entry that can be found for many other non notable architects is clearly not significant in coverage." it appears that those other architects are notable, and we have already created articles for each... so I don't think your argument holds here. --Theredproject (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that's a really strong argument. Four of the five architects you mentioned have pages with between one and three references. The interlibrary loan is impressive (and appreciated) dedication to the cause though!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theredproject : I don't think why we should only observe the entries but not verify the GNG of the individuals listed in that book. Those you mentioned here are really notable contrary to Kalappa who's notability cannot be established. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Text that is "well sourced" does not automatically become a Wikipedia article. Nor does a subject's notability guarantee one, either. This is the biography of an architect who, as it happens, is but one among fifty thousand architects in India. (Source) We need something more than a solid career for an article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More work on notability is needed than what searches show and what has been shown here. Not enough evidence for passing WP:GNG. GenuineArt (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2018 (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) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kanojia

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

Perfect case of WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable photographer. News coverage from the single event where he met an accident. Fails WP:SIGCOV & WP:PERSISTENCE Accesscrawl (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a link to his "Certificate of Creative Excellence" from the The Press Council of India [44]. Does that change anything for you? --Theredproject (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful, but it's still about a photographer who got one award and was (very sadly) killed on the job. Once you take away the articles relating to his death, you have a photographer with one award.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie Camm


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

There is no notablilty guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. The sourcing for this article is pretty thin and does not pass WP:GNG. Of the 5 references, three are obituaries for the previous oldest person in the UK and only tell us “Bessie Camm is now the oldest in the UK”. One is a GRG table which tells us nothing other than her name, age and country. The last is a local news article for when she became the oldest in the UK. Further google searches only bring up routine obituaries and more local articles. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the five basic trivial longevity stuff (Born, worked, married, became the oldest in the country, died). Entry on a list in List of British supercentenarians is enough as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB.

This topic area has a LONG history of off-Wiki canvassing and given that it occurred as recently as two weeks ago, I'm adding the NOTAVOTE tag. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 23 August 2018 (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. An overwhelming landslide of keeps. Participants have made it clear of the reasons for keeping. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 02:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Penzone

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Being a sherrif is not inherently notable. Virtually all the sources are about the elections. John from Idegon (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Once you eliminate the routine election coverage, the only things of "note" he did were shut down Arpaio's "tent city" and reverse other of his predecessor's policies. I at least would like to think that avoiding notoriety is not the way to fame— yet. Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck in favor of different outcome, see below. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the draft of the article, Penzone is not as notable as he seems. Most of his notability comes from him defeating a very notable sheriff. There's not much coverage in the article actually on him. He did receive lots of press coverage for his campaign win - voting delete would be tough to justify, but I do lean that way - I'd like to see the article sources updated to reflect the fact he's notable for reasons other than not being his predecessor. SportingFlyer talk 02:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While clearly the notability of this individual derives mainly from defeating Joe Arpaio, he has been receiving continuing coverage sufficient for SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my thoughts on this article have not changed since my comments on the previous AfD discussion in January, 2017. I still think he is notable for defeating a nationally-known opponent in a local election.--TommyBoy (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Joe Arpaio I still do not see anything here that wouldn't fit better in the section on Arpaio's defeat. He finally lost, and his successor went about reversing his various eccentric and publicity-mongering practices. The point indeed seems to be to stop being nationally known and go back to being an ordinary sherriff's office like every other one in the nation. There isn't a specific section in Arpaio's article about this defeat, but this material could be used to help constitute such a section. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muboshgu. James500 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good faith nomination, but other editors have now emphasized enough that I believe this needs to be kept. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, although I have already indicated my support for keeping this as a stand-alone article, in response to the nominator's new suggestion that this article should be at least partially merged with the Joe Arpaio article, I disagree with that, and think that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office article would be a more appropriate redirect target if this discussion concludes that it should not be kept as stand-alone article.--TommyBoy (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Penzone is a notable figure in Arizona, and while the amount of notable actions are fairly scant, Penzone has only served one year in the role. I agree this is still a AFD nomination in good faith, but the article is strong enough to sustain without merge. All that being said, I do support the idea of revisiting this discussion at another time. JaxisMaximus (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fifteen to One

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

Mainly just recaps of each individual episode. Not enough to warrant its own article. BangJan1999 03:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG. Considerable standalone coverage ([45][46][47][48][49][50])--Launchballer 14:56, 23 August 2018 (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. Looks like everyone got fed up of the debate and wandered off elsewhere. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDowall-Thomas

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

None of this article's references are to a WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of either fleeting mentions or inclusion on small hobby game websites or blogs, none of which are themselves RS. This appears to be part of an expansive WP:WALLEDGARDEN that also includes entries for his company Cubicle 7, etc. Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merge to Cubicle 7 and redirect Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source, and the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards. If you can't do a competent BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (rationale for changed !vote) To be honest, I've never really liked this article, and I've given it a lot of thought over the last week. While I think it sneaks by WP:GNG on Designers & Dragons and the industry insider badge, I'm not 100% convinced that the subject's creative contribution is entirely up to my own personal criteria: somewhat more akin to a record producer than a musician, maybe, and so the standard for a relevant and interesting article is higher. I don't see anything important about the subject that wouldn't fit just as well under Cubicle 7, and obviously no rule says that everyone who meets NBIO should have their own article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source I value your opinion but, based on a combination of publisher and author, I don't share it. Further, a single source does not establish GNG. the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards I'm not sure the "Silver EEnie Roleplaying Gamer Trophy" is what WP:NAUTHOR has in mind under inherent notability via notable awards. I think the idea is more along the lines of the Man Booker Prize, the Pulitzer, the Caldecott Medal, etc. If you can't do a competent BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... In general, in AfD, we escalate up to calling each other incompetent, rather than coming out of the gate guns blazing. Just a friendly FYI. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about you earn your competence spurs in this area, Chetsford. Designers & Dragons is a four-volune work that has gone through two editions, written by a professional in the field (who is entirely independent of Cubicle 7) and published completely independently of Cubicle 7. It is therefore an independent, reliable source for this and the other Cubicle 7- related articles and YOUDONTLIKEIT is not any kind of mark against its reliability. CIR, man. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A work's page length or volume count is of no relevance in establishing whether it is RS. The Designers & Dragons game book is supposedly an historical-biographical source. To properly evaluate it we look at the publisher's reliability as a gatekeeper in the field of historical publishing, the author's credentials as an historian, and whether the source is - itself - referenced in unambiguously RS. To that extent:
  • Is the publisher a competent gatekeeper of historical or biographical works?: The publisher is a small novelty t-shirt manufacturer and card game company that has no physical address and this appears to be their only non-fiction publication. [51]
  • Is the author a credible historian?: The author, Shannon Appelcline, has undertaken no scholarly publishing indexed by Google Scholar, makes no claims to advanced degrees in the field of history (or any field, it seems) [52], makes no claims to membership in any learned society, and - from Google News - has never been quoted as a source on this subject in any RS.
  • Is the work generally accepted as reliable by other RS?: A check through Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR and I'm unable to turn up any RS that itself sources the Designers & Dragons puzzle book.
Therefore, I can affirmatively state that the Designers & Dragons puzzle book is definitely non-RS in any sense, least of all to the high standards demanded by WP:BLP.
This, of course, is aside from the fact that - even if it were RS (which it is not) - a single mention of someone in a single source is insufficient to establish GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Designers & Dragons a reliable source?

Seriously, Chetsford, are you unable to work Google Scholar or Google Books? I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons second edition, in Google scholar alone, along with additional citations of the first (Mongoose) Edition. https://gfy23kpax02.storage.googleapis.com/MTYxMzE3MDg0WA==02.pdf
Designers & Dragons is also cited in the following books, among others:
Peterson (2012) Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures, from Chess to Role-playing Games (referencing the first edition)
Witwer (2015) Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons
Byers & Coroso (2016) The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs (2016)
Desterding & Zagal (2018) Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations (published by ducking Routledge, the first text in its field)
Considering how recently Designers & Dragons was published and how little scholarly publication has yet been done on RPGs, this is certainly a significant enough uptake to establish its reliability in the subject area.
Your Cubicle 7 AfDs remind me of the AfD of Emily Care Boss by people who just DONTLIKEIT or don't get it. Such ignorant gestures are frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia.Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My tone was inappropriate for this venue and I have redacted my comments as a gesture of apology. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, by referring to Designers & Dragons as a "game book" or a "puzzle book" you are simply discrediting yourself. It is neither of these things. It is a respected historical source for the Role-playing industry, well reviewed in other publications, researched by an expert with decades of professional writing experience. If you can't find the works that cite it, that is a CIR issue for you and nothing else. Also the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention". Please stop writing about things you can't characterize accurately. Newimpartial (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In ref to your comment:
  • I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons I, too, saw that. I stand by what I said: "I'm unable to turn up any RS" (emphasis added). This, of course, is aside from the fact that Dominic McDowall-Thomas will need more than simply being acknowledged in Designers & Dragons to pass GNG or ANYBIO. He needs significant coverage in a variety of RS. Ergo, even if Designers & Dragons was RS (it isn't) Dominic McDowall-Thomas still fails GNG / ANYBIO for lack of reference in any other RS.
No, by NAUTHOR as long as the article subject has produced notable works and sufficient sources exist to create an encyclopedia entry (which we clearly have in this case), the article passes WP:N. (Not that there aren't other RS, just that they aren't needed for Notability.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is a CIR issue for you CIR issues are addressed at WP:ANI, not AFD.
  • the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention" This is not an AFD on Cubicle 7. This is an AFD on Dominic McDowall-Thomas.
  • It is frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia. So far you've thrice indicated I'm incompetent, you've called my mere presence on WP an "embarassment" [sic], and you've indicated my nominating this at AFD is an "ignorant gesture". If you believe I'm an incompetent and ignorant embarrassment, you'll need to request I be community banned at WP:ANI. If it's just hyperbole, you'll need to tone it down just a bit.
Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say I have strong feelings about AfD nominators who can't, or won't, carry out a competent BEFORE. Certainly your sloppy treatment of the sources citing Designers & Dragons - which included the new standard Routledge text in the field - was pretty scandalous. But I am saying that these actions are "ignorant" and "an embarrassment", not you personally. And I never bring anyone to ANI for a "first offense" even if they do something actionable; also, not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out. Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out" Again, AFD is not a place for "call outs". You need to use this space to discuss the AFD, not to discuss your opinion of other editors. Repeatedly declaring another editor incompetent in an AFD while simultaneously saying no "actionable" concerns exist is essentially an acknowledgment that this is just a drive-by personal attack. If you have concerns please take them to ANI. If you don't want to take them to ANI then you either need to ruminate on them in a non-expressive format or post them to your Sandbox, Userpage, or Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are doing to refer to tabletop role-playing games as "puzzle games" or "board games" - which declares that you have no idea what you are nominating - and then deny the reliability of the major historical source for the field - even though you know it has been cited in scholarly articles and a Routledge text - then I am going to point out that CIR. The only alternative would be to assume bad faith, which I am reluctant to do. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, this AFD is not a place to raise questions about the competence of individual editors. In fact, our WP:CIR policy implicitly precludes accusing other editors of CIR outside of an incident forum or on an individual editor's Talk page. Again, WP:ANI is the forum you need to use (or my Talk page). Thank you for your future help in keeping this forum topical and civil. Chetsford (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says that "generally" the term incompetent doesn't help; it a!so says that things should not be brought to ANI. But you are right; this is a talk page topic. I will refrain from commenting further on competence issues here. Peace out. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that I proposed to Chetsford that we remove the bickering above as a NOTFORUM violation, but he did not agree. Sorry, readers! Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial - please unstrike my comments. I can't do so myself without violating 3RR. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Newimpartial and I'm sure the same arguments apply to Angus Abranson as well. I will try go to through my available sources for the multitude of related AFDs later today, but that has certainly created a lot of work for me. If a Keep result becomes impossible here, then I request this be sent to Draft so that it can be worked on further. BOZ (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If Keep or Draft are not reasonable options, then I see three people below suggesting Merging to Cubicle 7, and in my mind a selective merge would be better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep I think we have a disagreement on what counts as a reliable source. I've not seen a clear justification (other than not liking the publisher?) why Designers & Dragon isn't reliable. Also recognized in the field as an industry insider at GenCon. At the least this is a merge to Cubical 7, so really not a topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit - for purposes of forward momentum I'd be happy, potentially, to simply concede Designers & Dragons is RS. If I did would your position be that a WP:BLP can be sustained by a single (i.e. 1) RS? I know of no other recent BLP here that has passed with only one RS, other than those which have inherent notability and we don't have an inherent notability category for business executives or game designers. To the other point, I question whether once having been issued a speaker pass at a trade show at a rental hall in Indiana meets the spirit of our policies on GNG (whether said trade show is GENCON, the National Automobile Dealers Association Show, or Concrete World Expo, all of which are of similar size). Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my issue is that you know your way around here well enough that you had to have known that there was a clear merge option here. But instead you proposed deletion. I do get the sense you are rapidly educating yourself about the subject matter you nominated, which is great, if a bit late. But ignoring that, you are right, one independent RS isn't enough for a BLP to be kept in general (there are other reliable sources in the article BTW, but they aren't independent and so don't count toward WP:N). There are a number of other independent reliable sources (https://thegaminggang.com/tag/dominic-mcdowall-thomas/ where TGG has editorial control for example) but given that you are struggling to accept the book in question as a RS, I really don't think we are going to get anywhere with you accepting a small company that focuses on gaming as a reliable source. So we'll just have to see what others think. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7, Designers & Dragons is borderline reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP (non-academic publisher, cited only in other borderline sources); since we hold WP:BLPSOURCES to a high standard, I'd lean towards not counting it in this context, so we'd need another few solid RS.
I'm not sure how much editorial oversight TGG has (apparently some, but mostly by Jeff McAleer, who is also the author of a lot of the pieces being cited) and in any case the content Hobit linked consists of three interviews (not WP:INDEPENDENT) and a game review by McAleer that gives no biographical information about McDowall-Thomas.
Other than these, Google/News/Scholar/Books searches find only interviews, obviously unreliable sources (fora, blogs, etc), and his LinkedIn. The latter mentions that he won the 2012 Origins Award for Best RPG Supplement; this could count towards WP:ANYBIO if we consider it awell-known and significant award, but given that this criterion is supposed to be at the same level ashaving been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on their field, by historians, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. FourViolas (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FourViolas, please stop spreading disinformation. SCHOLARSHIP is not required for a source to be reliable and independent for purposes of WP:N, so please don't pretend that only academic sources count. The fact that Designers & Dragons is repeatedly cited with approval in actual academic texts on RPGs, including the new one from Routledge, really ought to give you pause in this line of argument, and it would behoove you to look at the last 10 years of RPG AfDs before your toes reach your esophagus. Or are Routledge publications borderline sources to you now?
Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain, you might as well stop contributing now and save all of is a lot of wasted energy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"FourViolas, please stop spreading disinformation." It is important we, individually, put forth an effort not to make incendiary claims about other editors and to AGF. "it would behoove you to look at the last 10 years of RPG AfDs" This is not a requirement of AfD !voting. "Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain" There is no "RPG domain". WP standards are WP standards. There are no special criteria for games; they have to meet the same evidentiary requirements as any commercial product - a car, a refrigerator brand, breakfast cereal, anything. "you might as well stop contributing now" FourViolas has an impressive 91% match rate at AfD; her contributions and expertise are valued and welcome. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is certainly something to be said against writing AfD comments while annoyed, and if FourViolas (who really ought to share since I only have one) took anything personally I'm sure they will let me know. The fact is that nobody who doesn't know what an Origins Award is, or who does but holds the fringe view that it doesn't count for notability, should be contributing to AfDs for RPGs, any more than should trolls or people who describe RPGs as "puzzle games" or "like Stratego".
And your argument that games are the same as other commercial products is simply wrong per WP policy. These particular games are creative works, namely books in this specific case, and NAUTHOR/NCREATIVE applies in this case as it would not if we were discussing refrigerators or breakfast cereals.
My comment about "spreading disinformation" was specific to the claim that SCHOLARSHIP was necessary for reliable sourcing of articles and for Notability. That just isn't true - it is never true - and in this particular case amounts to FUD engineered by an editor whose intention appears to have been to sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive nominations while also displaying to the world that he does not know what a WP:WALLEDGARDEN or a FANZINE is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sources don't have to be scholarship to be reliable, but sources purporting to be historical scholarship—as Designers does—had better be the reliable kind to count for notability, and SCHOLARSHIP is the guideline for determining that. Per my comments at the Cubicle 7 AfD, the Routledge collection citing Designers is probably just enough to meet that standard, but especially since BLPs have strict sourcing requirements we need another solid RS or two to be able to write an acceptable article, and I'm really not seeing any.
As for the Origins Awards, I interpret ANYBIO'swell-known and significant standard as "familiar to the general public" rather than "familiar to people who closely follow the subfield being recognized", because the latter seems to make the criterion almost meaningless: if I win Best Poster Presentation at an international bryophyte reproductive physiology conference, any bryophyte reproductive physiologist will understand and appreciate this, but I'm not automatically eligible for a WP article. FourViolas (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere, SCHOLARSHIP is intended to establish a hierarchy of preferred sources, not to create a standard for Notability higher than that in the GNG. And NBIO does not at all create a higher sourcing standard (as NCORP does); it specifies that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (WP:BASIC). This is exactly the case we have here: one really clearly significant source, a number of smaller ones (and interviews that don't count for WP:N, a consensus determination I respect though I do not agree with its logic), along with industry awards and honors that demonstrate, per WP:CREATIVE, the the subject has "won significant critical attention" and "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". This really is a slam dunk CREATIVE pass.
Also, what could I give you for your least favorite Viola? I could really use a travel model ;). Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think BASIC allows us to combined multiple reliable sources with less-than-significant coverage to make one notability-conferring source, not to combine multiple less-than-reliable sources with significant coverage, and the latter is what I'm seeing here. I would agree that the strongest case for notability comes from CREATIVE'sregarded as an important figure [...] by peers standard, but that too has to be attested in a BLPRS. I can't find evidence that he (and some number of other people?) won an Origins Award for Best RPG Supplement (the winners pages aren't archived), and even if I could I'm not sure it would qualify; there are a half-dozen awarded annually, and he hasn't been named to the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design's Hall of Fame. Did you hear about the violist who left his instrument in plain view in his car? When he got back, somebody had smashed the windshield and thrown in two more violas. FourViolas (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first hit on a Google search for him shows that a couple of books he worked on were nominated for Origins awards this year[53] and one of them won.[54] I haven't looked deeper than that, yet. BOZ (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is listed as lead designer on Adventures in Middle-earth, which win this year's Origins Award for Best RPG (source here: [55] ). I don't think there can be any real doubt about this one, per CREATIVE. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic McDowall-Thomas didn't do any writing for Designers & Dragons, or Dungeons & Dragons for that matter, unless you mean something else? BOZ (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven:. As BOZ notes, I'm not seeing how this comment makes any sense. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I miread some of the comments above about D&D. Still not sure about the level of sourcing, too much is primary.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Cubicle 7 for sake of helping consensus. D&D is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for BLP and the rest of the sources, Cubicle7's web site and other SPS. See permalink for RSN discussion on D&D as of this time. Jbh Talk 16:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC) last edited 03:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - co-founded the second incarnation of a single company that is just barely notable itself, and doesn't have much media coverage. Anyone else notice that the first two sentences say he's known for two different unrelated things? Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The debate was lengthy and well-contested at points on both sides, but consensus favors deletion, and it is correctly pointed out that there is no clear way to delineate the parameters of such a list. I do note, however, that it may be worthwhile to create an article on the topic of Giant animals in fiction, rather than merely pursuing a list. bd2412 T 04:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of giant animals in fiction

List of giant animals in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Entirely original research. For the most part, better served by Category:Kaiju. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: You are, as always, misrepresenting our actual policies, and wikilawyering over the fact that the pages that elaborate on what our policies actually say and provide the widely accepted (one might even say standard) interpretations thereof) are currently technically classified as "essays". Specifically, you are ignoring that the relevant policy, WP:DEL-REASON allows for this page's deletion or redirecting per reasons 5, 6 (probably), 7, 8 (kinda), 13 and 14. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would ask you please read articles before !voting on whether they should be deleted going forward. No rational editor could !vote to WP:PRESERVE the article in its current state, unless they were completely ignorant of what was actually in it. I don't think you are familiar with either Final Fantasy or Cardcaptor Sakura: if you were, you would know that what is in this list is incredibly arbitrary and ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth adding that Andrew, as is his habit, violated ARS's rules by not giving a valid reason for keeping the article and instead just leaving a joke comment that can only be interpreted as "Inclusionist friends and allies! The deletionists are at it again -- you know what to do!" I've told him off for this multiple times and he just doesn't seem to be learning -- perhaps a TBAN is in order... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very obviously listcruft, and there really is no meaningful relationship between the entries that unifies them as a single group to be together on a list. It's like having a list of animals in fiction whose names start with L. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically vandalism » Shadowowl | talk 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That attempted redirect is pretty amazing. Andrew, I realize that you have decided that you don't like me, but the fact is that you listed this AfD at the Article Rescue Squad without remembering to note it here, so I noted it. Anyway, I'm quite aware that gigantism exists in biology. But if editors want me to spell out policy some more, no problem. I think that WP:LISTN certainly requires, by implication, that the list comply with WP:NOR. If the list is created by observing that one source lists a certain number of giant fictional animals, and then another source lists another group of such animals, with some overlap between the two but not complete congruence, and then a third source does likewise – and then editors create the list page by combining together all of the giant fictional animals from all of those sources plus some other giant fictional animals, then that is WP:SYNTH, particularly if one source is about giant animals in mythology, another is about giant animals in more recent literature, another about children's stories, and another about cinema. That problem does not arise in Megafauna (mythology) because that page is about the subject. But making a standalone list page requires secondary sourcing that supports inclusion of all members of the list as members of a single list group, or else a combination of such groups based on editor selection ends up being original research. That's why WP:LISTN says:a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources – it goes on to say that not every member of the list need be notable on its own, but that's not the same thing as saying that not every member need be part of the "group or set" without violating SYNTH. And I see in this discussion that some editors who should know better are saying that, because there is enough sourcing to conclude that "giant fictional animals" is a subject that passes WP:GNG, then that's that, and we must keep the page. However, we also have WP:What Wikipedia is not. Therefore, being "notable" means that we may keep a page, but it does not mean that we must keep a page. The SYNTH inherent in this list page is what makes it "cruft". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, that essay should be redirected on grounds that it is "cruft cruft" ie basically redundant to umpteen other essays on the same subject. And there is a list in the Armaggedon Films book. James500 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does WP:CLN have to do with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The material in WP:DOAL, while relating primarily to technical considerations, might reasonably be referenced in an argument in favour of deleting the article. Kilopylae (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drm310: I've replaced the tag you put on the above !vote, since Kilopylae has never edited the article in question, and the account was apparently created specifically for this AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have !voted twice, changing this to a comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. based on the sourcing Andrew and Drm1 specifies above. ILooking at delete comments after those comments, I don't see the problems mentioned. The one substantive reply seems to misunderstand: Moby Dick is exactly the sort of giant animal whose role in a famous fiction can be exhaustively sourced, That fact that's he's larger than other whales in central and what everyone remembers about it. And tho he's central to the book, the book is about a great deal morre than "simply about large animals" ) . King Kong is not mythological...he's a deliberate fictional creation invented in 1923, a film where he's central, and where his size is his key characteristic. Both of them are exactly what this list should be about. Babe the Blue Ox is folklore, not mythology. but is important to njmerous fictions about Paul Bunyan. In all these the act that the animal is giant is central to the fiction. The Jaberwock is described in the poem as a large animal--see the poem. I agree that it's unclear whether it's giant or merely vicious. The other commen tthat gives a reason,gives one that does not apply. . "Not Everything" -- this isn't about every animal or or even every giant animal ever existing or conceived --it's a list of those animals reasonably central to notable fiction. If there are some listed in non-notable fiction they should be removed. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Drm310 actually doesn't provide any sources above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of Andrew's three sources, one (the kaijuu one) if anything demonstrates the notability of a separate article that has already been redirected, one (the Ashgate one) is useless for a list but might theoretically be good if we were writing an unrelated article on the history of giant animals in fiction, and one has a GBooks preview that is currently unavailable to me. It's obvious Andrew hasn't read the two that I have access to and I highly doubt he's read the other one either, rather just Googling them up and linking them here in the hopes that others, such as DGG and Drm310, would just say "keep per Andrew". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total bullshit written by someone who apparently likes Final Fantasy even more than I do, but has never actually thought about it all that much. "Chocobos", for example, are only "giant" if one considers them to be chickens rather than ostriches. Nothing in the article worth keeping, no reason given to assume it could ever be any different, given the number of other articles on essentially this same topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasoning of DGG and the sources (Ashgate and Armaggedon certainly, and probably the other since the book says Kaiju generally denotes "epic size") provided by Andrew Davidson, which demonstrate a clear pass of LISTN, inasmuch as giant animals satisfy GNG as a group, being discussed as a group in sources. James500 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: Actually, per my response to DGG, the sources appear to demonstrate the notability of a separate article detailing the history of giant animals in fiction, which this ain't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "giant animals in fiction" satisfies GNG, then "list of giant animals in fiction" automatically satisfies LISTN, because that is how LISTN works. If X satisfies GNG, then list of X automatically satisfies LISTN. If this seems odd, bear in mind that I did not write the guideline and am not to blame for it. James500 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC) That said, a page move to "giant animals in fiction" with an option to spin out the list later if the page becomes to long, would not be completely unreasonable at this point, there being no main article at this point. James500 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That doesn't matter. If the only way we can build a list is by violating NOR, we are not allowed have a list. The sources do not allow for this. Use of the Ashcroft source for a list like this one is OR; breaking down the content of the Ashcroft source to only list individual giant animals would completely miss the point. If you want to make a swamp monster of this and turn the article that is currently there into a completely different kind of article based on the sources that are available, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if a book says the Japanese word kaijū "generally denotes epic size", then it can promptly be dismissed as unreliable, as even "laymen" in this "field" know that that is dai-kaijū ("big monsters"), not kaijū which says nothing in particular of size. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible to create a list of giant animals in fiction without original research, using the sources available. James500 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it would be pointless and would miss the point of the sources to such an extent as to seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of NOR, to remove all the historical discussion given in, say, the Ashcroft source and turn it into an alphabetical list of monster names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: You clearly have not actually read the kaiju book, since if you had either (a) you would come to the conclusion that it is a completely unusable source filled with errors or (b) you would realize that the Japanese term 怪獣 is problematic here since, even if it is using the term as a synonym for 大怪獣 (and explicitly justified this nonstandard terminology in the text), it refers to a broad range of monsters, some completely imaginary (i.e., not giant versions of real-world animals), and whether it covers humanoid monsters like Sanda and Gaiga is a matter of debate (since 怪獣 as opposed to 大怪獣 says nothing about size in Japanese, there's no reason why Frankenstein's original monster is not called a 怪獣 in Japanese but his children are). It is definitely not coterminous with the present article's "giant animals", and in fact a separate "list of kaiju" was already redirected as a result of a previous discussion, so attempting to use this AFD to turn a separate article into a content fork of that one (which would engage in blatant OR by conflating the terms 怪獣 and 大怪獣 with "giant animals") is ... pretty disruptive, and comes across as the same type of behaviour for which several editors including myself called you out in a recent AN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it is OR to take a set of sources that describe a category of creatures they call kaijū, and extrapolate from that your own subcategory of kaijū that is only the "giant animals", and especially to add to this subcategory other giant animals that are not referred to as kaijū. You simply are not allowed do this. If you want to argue with TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) about unredirecting the separate list of kaiju creatures article, fire ahead, but don't pretend the two are actually the same topic and use sources on the already redirected page to prop up this one. And definitely don't try to argue the definitions of common Japanese words based on your own misreadings of various sources (some specialist and assuming prior knowledge on the reader's part, others simply wrong). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Japanese, but I would add that taking a source about Kaijū, and another about large animals in English-language cinema, and combining them into a single list can involve WP:SYNTH unless the sources specify that these are entirely the same thing. Cultural differences may make these things into not-really-overlapping categories. (Perhaps monsters that attack cities are not the same thing as friendly giant creatures in children's stories.) No problem with comparing those in a regular article, but this is a list page. Also, I've noticed at the list page talk page that editors have had disagreements over inclusion criteria, something that invites further WP:OR without sourcing that defines useful criteria for all list members. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These things are famous for their size, so perfectly valid list article. Some things of course don't need to be on the list. We have Megafauna (mythology) for all the giant animals in mythology to be listed at. Leviathan and Behemoth link to the biblical creatures, not the ones in the Final Fantasy games. I don't think every giant character in every video game ever should be listed since that'd be quite a large pointless list. A valid list would contain giant dogs who have articles about their characters, films, or bestselling book series of course. Fictional things that are not a major part of the fictional series they are part of, that get no mention of their own can be purged. The list is perfectly valid, just needs specific inclusion criteria. Does anyone doubt that Clifford the Big Red Dog or King Kong are notable because of their size? Dream Focus 21:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Is a list of animals that are "large" in size in all of fiction really discriminate and focused as a topic? I'd be more inclined to see this as a category than a list article. The subject is not focused enough to ever be truly complete, nor could it be developed into a list article of any level of quality until parameters on what is "giant" are set - and given that fictional universes don't have data for the most part, that would mean using WP:SYNTH to do so. This just screams problematic all over. Red Phoenix talk 00:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I feel like I've said this in at least four AFDs in the last seven months, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster and most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (4th nomination), but mythology (or folklore) and fiction are not the same thing, and almost nothing in this list could be called "mythology" by any definition. Had you said redirect and highly selective merge to ensure no OR or fancruft I would have no problem, but you can't say "merge all content" and not expect to be told that chocobos are neither mythological nor folkoric. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we do have Lists of fictional animals. Having also List of fictional giant animals looks a little "forkish" and subjective. Second, Dragon, Leviathan and Behemoth (on this page) belong to mythology. Saying that, I think this page might be kept, the discussion above looks like "no consensus" to me. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Dragon", "behemoth" and "leviathan" are not here because they come from mythology; they are specifically listed because of the appearance of entirely imaginary fictional creatures that share their names appearing in various pop culture properties. Strictly speaking "behemoth" and "leviathan" are not "mythological" anyway; they are names appearing in the bible, whose referents are uncertain, but probably refer to elephants and whales respectively, both of which actually exist and so are not "fictional" in any sense, and are only mythological in the same way human beings are. The discussion above looks like "no consensus" only if you ignore the fact that all of the "keep" !votes are based on ridiculous arguments that have been thoroughly discredited, and mostly come from "keepist" editors who never !vote delete. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is that what happened here? That's not what the page creator's edit summary said. BTW, your new argument contradicts your previous argument that the subject is "notable" because of various sources you Googled up but didn't read, but you haven't retracted that one or even attempted to defend it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that was several hours before I posted the above, and the last relist was about the worst and most blatant example of WP:RELISTBIAS I've seen in recent memory. If we're being completely fair, the first relist was not great either; Andrew's !votes seem to be given more weight the more disruptive and less coherent they are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, this is getting to the point where I can't believe you haven't been TBANned yet: I already pointed out to you above that the Ashgate article is not a list, and if anything demonstrates notability for an article discussing the history, etc. of giant animals in fiction, not a list. Your claiming, despite my having already rebutted you weeks ago, thathas a section headed "Gargantuan Animals" which lists [emphasis added] examples ... [t]he list concept is therefore notable and so not indiscriminate comes across as deliberate disruption, and at best is engaging in somewhat "creative" tricks of language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LISTN does not require the source to present the information in list form, like we do. It states, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set". That's what the Ashgate Encyclopedia does. Its overall topic is "Literary and Cinematic Monsters" and it discusses "Gargantuan Animals" in a distinct section. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase the Merchant of Venice, "Mark you this Bassanio, the Devil can cite WP:LISTN for his own purpose". In this case, what I don't understand is why has nobody managed to write a good lead that clearly and unambiguously explains the importance of the list. I would venture that's because it isn't possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit notice for this discussion states that "...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight ... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." So, I cite WP:LISTN because that is a relevant guideline. The Merchant of Venice seems less relevant and so may be given less weight. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason LISTN is called a guideline is because it needs to be interpreted according to circumstances. If a topic would be better covered in a prose article than a list like this one, and the list option would be a bullshit OR magnet, then we don't have a list. If you want to write a separate article discussing the history Giant animals in fiction, fire ahead, but the page under discussion now needs to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we decided to restructure the content, the relevant policies would be WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE which indicate that we would build upon the existing page rather than deleting and starting from nothing. In the recent similar case of List of fictional swords and Swords in fiction, it was decided to stick with the list title and format. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I would opt to see that list deleted as well. There's nothing to rebuild here because the notion of the topic is flawed. Again, is all of fiction discriminate enough as a focus to meet WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? I would argue that it does not. Red Phoenix talk 22:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, please stop speaking in ridiculous hypotheticals. PRESERVE doesn't apply here because literally nothing in this list is worth preserving (even entries that might merit discussion in a good article are unsourced and poorly written, and most are complete bullshit). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly want to preserve the entries for King Kong, which is vital for this topic, and the Giant Rat of Sumatra, which is especially entertaining and notable. To delete such valid entries would be disruptive and that's why our policy is to build on such key elements. Andrew D. (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the "Giant Rat of Sumatra" is an example of a fictional giant animal is questionable when it originates a throwaway fictional allusion in a work by Conan Doyle that apparently didn't specify its size (lots of real-world animals are called "giant" just because they are larger than what the speaker might be used to, so Doyle might have been imagining something that was still significantly smaller that the ROUSes in The Princess Bride), and the source attached to it is actually about a newly-discovered real-life giant rat in kinda-sorta neighbouring New Guinea, clearly unrelated to the fictional creature (but using a source that claims the animal in question is not fictional afterall kinda goes against the stated purpose of the list). As for King Kong, abundant sources could be found identifying him as a kaijū, which would make his listing here redundant if the other article hadn't already been redirected due to persistent vandalism (not notability, so you're free to recreate the list). Neither entry includes any useful information that isn't already stated better elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so WP:PRESERVE doesn't actually apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I just checked the page history. You're the one who misinterpreted the source as talking about an actual fictional animal appearing in stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, rather than a throwaway fake allusion interpreted variously by later authors. If you don't know how giant "giant" is, and if various writers of both fiction and non-fiction have interpreted it as referring to "above average, but not entirely out of the ordinary, so that a real animal could actually be given the same name", you are violating NOR (the spirit if not the letter) to list it here. By doing so, you added to the reasons to delete this article, even if your intent was clearly the opposite.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me suggest to both of you that it probably is not useful to continue discussing this here. It's pretty obvious that you disagree with each other and that neither one of you is likely to change the other's mind. To some extent, this is a disagreement about deletion criteria, and to some extent it's a disagreement over personal conduct, and the latter should be addressed via dispute resolution, but not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2018 (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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki Countdown Live 2000–2001 A

Ayumi Hamasaki Countdown Live 2000–2001 A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC » Shadowowl | talk 21:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The jawiki article has the lookup information, as noted above. Here is a link to the RIAJ certifications page where anyone can look up certifications going back to 1989 [56]. The date to look up for this video's certification is November 2003. Video certifications are listed lower on the page, so some scrolling may be required. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found it. The article is still crap, and the notability guidelines are called guidelines specifically so we can ignore them when strictly following them results in crap articles. As I said, I have no prejudice against the idea that a decent article could be built, but the topic having charted does not necessarily demonstrate that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the official reasoning is given by Bakazaka as per WP:NMUSIC. Hijiri makes a legitimate note about not being obliged to follow it, but I don't believe the article is beyond clean-up as is (just). I've done the minimum of actual proper formatting - the blank bits are all there in the wikitext, I just don't have the data to fill it in. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added wikilinks, but more importantly, the gathering of them found a surprisingly high number of good articles - clearly there are interested editors willing to do significant amounts of work on the topic Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2018 (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 was that the additional sources presented prove notability and that the article should be retained. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

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

Single self-sourced reference. Couldn't find much more other than TV appearances of the founder in a WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in late 1990s and early 2000s in NYT, LAT, WSJ, and so on. Added a few refs to article, search finds many more, not only the usual quotes and deal coverage, but profiles of company and founders. Notability doesn't expire. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is the company still going? If it is, it hasn't done much lately. I know notability is not temporary, but any earlier notability looks borderline. I might suggest merging with the Ann Winblad or John Hummer articles. He was an NBA player so his article might not fit as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The firm was widely covered in the 1990s for its technology-only investment strategy, then again in early 2000s for failing huge with early dotcoms and also the Napster fallout (which threatened the existence of the firm, see [57]). After some partner shuffles (e.g. [58]) it rebranded as HWVP and is still active, e.g. in the recent round of funding for Stackery [59]. Bakazaka (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

List of sources (extended)

Cunard (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuva Ratri

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

This article on a short film has no sources. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find anything. The film does not even have an entry on IMDB. Fails WP:GNG. The article claims to have won the jury prize at the Royal Nepalese Army film competition, however, no source can be found to verify this and - even if it could - I'm not sure this prize would be of sufficiency to qualify under WP:NFILM. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet general notability guideline. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2018 (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. bd2412 T 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Mundkur

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

Promotional piece for a non-noable actor - a few minor roles. PRehse (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not know who has uploaded this information. The information with references can be referred necessarily. Others could be deleted. How to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:2704:5B7E:2467:A21:3D5C:B89F (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (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/withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoyangmen Outer Street

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm fluent in Chinese and there doesn't seem to be anything but passing mentions of this road even in Chinese-language sources from searches on Google books and News. Doesn't seem to have anything worth merging into another article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've not been able to find any sources that claim anything besides the fact that it exists. Maybe it it had some historic significance, it could be considered notable, but this doesn't meet the notability guidelines and Wikipedia isn't a street directory. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking per discussion below. Historical significance grants presumption of notability. I will be performing another deeper BEFORE before making a new !vote — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per WP:Roadways and per Alpha3031. Any significant information from this article can be put into bigger articles. In short, Chaoyangmen Outer Street doesn't have the sufficient ,significant history or multiple amount of secondary mentions to properly satisfy WP:Roadways OR WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More about the street can be found after breaking up the name into Chao Yang Men Outer Street or by looking for Chaoyangmen Dajie. Also looking in Chinese (simplified and traditional) helps establishing notability. In summary, this main route in Beijing easily passes WP:N. gidonb (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gidonb. James500 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply @Gidonb and James500: The number of sources isn't in question, but how many of them go beyond passing mentions like "walking past X road, you will see building Y", "on road X is the headquarter of company Z" and "road X will be closed due to the international distance running festival being held this April 15"? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: Why would it matter? As long as there are sufficient WP:INDEPTH sources that do establish notability, the total number of other sources - that can still reference information within the article - makes absolutely no difference. In general, when a major arterial in a world city like Beijing is nominated, it points at a serious WP:BEFORE failure. Same applies to the supporting opinions. People couldn't find something since it is spelled in different languages in different ways. This should be closed as a keep regardless of any tallies because nobody here makes the claim that notability of streets needs to be reviewed drastically different than before (and even if one would: WP:WRONGFORUM). gidonb (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm not sure the rest of the Template:Roads and expressways of Beijing will do any better as far as sourcing. By the User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people rule of thumb, Beijing's roads would warrant 400 or so articles, yet most of the roads on the template don't even have articles. Do we want to delete the unsourced ones and consolidate? Λυδαcιτγ 07:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Persuaded by Oakshade's argument to keep for historical significance. Λυδαcιτγ 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Gidonb: I resent the implication that I had not done a BEFORE search. In fact, I managed to find two sources... about the half-marathon they ran near the road. If you want to adopt it and find sources, that's great, I'd support a draftify but unless there are significant sources, and someone points to them, it's unlikely that this be kept. I empathise with the people wanting to keep this, I really do, but I trust my own judgement (a terrible idea, I know) and I honestly can't find the sources. If anyone can suggest a good WP:ATD-M target, I'd be happy with that too, but frankly exclaiming that there must be coverage isn't that convincing. On the other hand, if an argument is made for historical significance, I would be inclined to strike my !vote.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: I never implied that you did not do a WP:BEFORE. You say that you failed to find sufficient sources for a keep and I agree. It's not the only misconception you promote above. I stated that sufficient WP:INDEPTH sources exist for WP:N. This means that the article should stay per WP:NEXIST and not per WP:MUSTBESOURCES as you falsely assign to me. There is no difference between the positions of all keep sayers here. All succeeded where others, including the nominator, failed. It is true that the existence of quality sources should not surprise anyone for good reasons (and I did point these out) but I always check and stated that I did. The fact that this article has been assessed by WikiProject China as being of Mid-importance should also have been a red flag WP:BEFORE the nomination and its support! gidonb (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb, yes you've stated that in-depth sources exist, and so have the other keep !voters, but none of you seem inclined to point out which sources you're referring too. That is, in fact, my only contention, and I'll say now I'd definitely strike my !vote if even a single in-depth source is pointed out to me, but all I've been able to find are passing mentions. Again, maybe it's obvious where the sources are, but hey, maybe pointing them out would save the closer some time too (I guess it was a little confusing, but I will accept an argument of historical significance as well, in lieu of sourcing, not in addition to it).— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: I made a point of directly adding references and historical significance in the article. It has so much more lasting value than discussing all these lame nominations. This is of course just the tip of the iceberg. I found much more in Chinese. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: That's great, but what you've added are all passing mentions. That a temple, or a foreign affairs ministry was built on it doesn't make it notable, if it's noted as a centre of culture because of the buildings surrounding it would. I see now that you've added that Chaoyangmen was originally called Qihuamen. That is excellent, and I'll be striking my delete now. I would have felt better if you'd just provided one of your significant sources instead. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as obtuse, but the keep !votes weren't that convincing without a single substantial link. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: If you look carefully, you will see that several of the sources I added contribute to the notability of the subject. Personally I view ill researched nominations as obstructive, since they needlessly take energy away from the article space. Thank you for the compliment and I was really happy that you are now taking WP:NEXIST into full consideration, as is evident from your comment below your original opinion. It makes the discussion somewhat worthwhile! gidonb (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2018 (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. bd2412 T 03:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Brown

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

Subject is an American hip hop record producer. Sources provided from Utube, listing and interview piece. A WP:BEFORE found sources primary from user generated source, sell, listing and interview and no independent reliable secondary sources found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there indeed are reliable sources that can verify being on year-end top lists and Billboard chartings (that are independent from being the accomplishments of the artists he has worked with), then citing them could improve the page. But merely being accomplished doesn't necessarily translate in to wikipedia-notability if there are not independent, reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2018 (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. Clearly no consensus to delete outright. Unclear if this should be kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of dragons , but that can get hashed out on the talk pages. For the moment, calling this NC, which defaults to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:CONTENTFORK of List of dragons minus the mythology section. There is no need for two articles covering essentially the same thing. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of dragons, as per PamD, if there is any useful content in this article. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several lists of dragons. The page in question has an edit history going back to 2003. It appears that, in that year, the main list was split into multiple sublists:
  1. List of dragons in mythology and folklore
  2. List of dragons in literature
  3. List of dragons in popular culture
  4. List of dragons in film and television
  5. List of dragons in games

while the main list was made a list of lists called Lists of dragons. The page suggested by the nomination -- list of dragons -- only goes back to 2011 and so is a comparatively recent piece of this churning. The general principle of WP:REDUNDANTFORK is that "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article" and so we should preserve the page(s) with the longest history. In any case, arriving at the best scheme for organising all this information is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and should involve the editors of all those pages, not just a couple. Doing such investigation is what's expected per WP:BEFORE but the nominator just seems to be on a deletion spree of lists of fiction and so isn't doing due diligence. Andrew D. (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (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. Overall consensus, keeping in mind the strengths of the arguments herein, is for deletion. North America1000 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Curry Jr.

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Likely notable. See [60], [61], [62] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski two of those are about his father and the third just confirms he exists.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. I would suggest a merge or redirect to Fred Curry (wrestler) would be better. I'm not sure that article has the coverage to be notable, at least not based on the article's current sources, but it's a better article than the one on his son. There's no indication that Junior meets any notability criteria required for an individual article. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa: During his heyday, the elder Fred Curry was a pushed wrestler in what was one of the top promotions in the United States at the time. I agree that the sources in that article are basically bullshit. Unfortunately, logic doesn't seem to matter in these discussions about half the time, only whether we're catering to the usual web-fueled 21st-century mindset. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (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) wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Varghese

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

Fails WP:NACTOR who has made exactly one short film. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Two references confirm he has been in a short film, and he stands out amongst a group of 87 people. scope_creep (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient for WP:NACTOR. He doesn't inherit notability from being in notable films (all of two), and his awards are not sufficient to meet notability as an actor. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two is multiple. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Strongest K-Pop Survival

The Strongest K-Pop Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSERIES and WP:GNG. There might be Korean sources available which can prove that it meets WP:NSERIES and WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (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 Vietnam War. If that article becomes too lop-sided, we can look at a spinoff article at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War myths

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

Wikipedia is not an essay. Currently it uses just one source, and I believe improving this article is impossible without making a WP:SYNTH combination of all instances that mention misconceptions or out-dated views about the Vietnam War. If some of the myth books are notable themselves, would be better to create an article about a such and present the views there. Pudeo (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vietnam War. This seems more appropriate as a single reliable source on the main article than a separate article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article on Vietnam War. The article on Vietnam War Myths is a comparatively brief article, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Vietnam War, I agree there is not enough here to warrant an independent article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need another beachfront for unsourced conspiracy theories about a war? This is a book blurb-turned-article based on one source, and we don't need that here. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand to Historiography of the Vietnam War; the article is lousy but not un-salvageable. Adding this content to Vietnam War will not improve that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand to Historiography of the Vietnam War--a notable and interesting topic that it is quite possible to write a long article on. Catrìona (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a summary of a single journal article, so is not useful. More broadly, we try to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting: it is much better to write them by stating what happened, and covering differing accounts of events where relevant. As such, the content in this article is not suitable to be merged anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot imagine a NPOV article under this rubric. Agree with Nick-D that it is best to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to historiography or keep. Cheers to the nominator for pinging me. A review article is serious evidence of notability for a term in historiography. With respect to Nick, "Review Articles," being field summaries, are scholarly tertiaries which indicate that a topic isn't just written about across a coatrack of secondaries, but has a genuine topical existence. On top of that there's a contemporary and modern monograph on direct topic in bibliography, and a trivial scholar search produces three unnoted monographs and three scholarly articles. The question for me is up scale the topic to historiography, or keep the "myth" question separate from the general historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between historiography and myth-busting. I fear that the latter would become a magnet for WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    since 2011 there seem a to have only been one FRINGE/ESSAY edit. The topic may be best served as a subsection of a historiography article though. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Historiography of the Vietnam War & keep: A valid topic and this would be a good start. Sources are suitable for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Primarily a dispute over whether to merge or rename and keep as a legitimate contentfork
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_23&oldid=857752712"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.