Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 29

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Keating

Adrian Keating (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 indepenent sources. I can't see what the claim to notability is here. The subject is a violinst with the pit orchestra in Sydney, and has various other enterprises of no special importance. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teete Owusu-Nortey

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

Nothing in-depth. Effectively as single ref for a position at work, re: press releasea. No effective sources. Fails WP:BIO. Some minor routine coverage.scope_creepTalk 23:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nulla poena sine culpa

Nulla poena sine culpa (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 is not a dictionary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plague (comics)

Plague (comics) (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)

Notability isn't established. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both the original nomination and the second page that was added halfway through. Normally I would balk at including a midstream addition without at least a relist. However, in this case the creator has been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, so that doesn't seem necessary. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (astrology) eminent personalities

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

This is trivia at best and unencyclopedic. It is what I would expect to find on a spammy astrology site and not an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Cancer (astrology)-eminent personalities was created this morning. Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Lights

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

It's wonderful that a family is into its holiday decorations, but I don't see the sources to support a claim of notability in the article or in a Google search. Nor does the details of how the lights and displays are controlled account for notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Setting. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psyker

Psyker (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)

Relatively minor part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. No secondary sources cited, and a search throws up no major coverage. The article has been tagged as relying solely on primary sources since 2012; as needing further citations since 2009; and for being wholly in-universe since 2014. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Warhammer)

Troll (Warhammer) (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)

Trolls are included in all kinds of fantasy worlds; no reason is given to think that Warhammer trolls are particularly notable - they don't even have their own army list. No sources, secondary or primary, are cited in this article, and it has add {{unreferenced}} at its head for almost a decade. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Salt (disambiguation). Merge at your discretion. Moving the title to fix typo now. czar 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salts (disambigution)

Salts (disambigution) (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 already a disambiguation page at Salt (disambiguation). Interstellarity (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North American Man/Boy Love Association

North American Man/Boy Love Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotes an illegal act.. Violates WP:TOS, and yes, I'll say it, it's disgusting as hell. Delete and salt! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you think deleting an article about a notable, evil, awful organization is going to accomplish. Do we delete our articles on the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, too? These are evil, awful organizations that are nevertheless notable and frankly historically important. By clearly and encyclopedically laying out for all time what these organizations are, what they stood for, and ultimately how they have been defeated, we do the world a service. It's a cliché, sure, but that whole thing about those who forget (or erase) their history are doomed to repeat it. Good, decent, right-thinking people want these histories remembered, because that's how we ensure nothing like it ever happens again. No one who has visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum will ever forget it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glaurung

Glaurung (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)

Minor dragon in the Silmarillion. Minor in-universe significance, I can't find any real-world significance (LOTR fan sites don't count). Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jack Upland I'd be open to working on that page. But I don't think a description of more than a couple sentences would be warranted for each person. And I'd probably remove the random minor characters nobody remembers from the Silmarillion from the list. Does that sound reasonable? I think the list could serve a good purpose if it gets reworked (especially once the "scouring of the Wikipedia" has been completed). Hog Farm (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uinen

Uinen (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)

Minor character in the Silmarillion. Only source is to said work, Google scholar knows her not, only Google sources available LOTR fan sites, which are inherently not RS. Hog Farm (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Amass

Girls Amass (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 indication that this album satisfies WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in sources - there is a bare discogs profile confirming that it exists, but I could find no significant coverage in independent sources. GirthSummit (blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Patch (Band)

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

No indication that this band passes WP:NBAND. The only thing in the article which might be an independent source (which looks like an interview, so probably not ideal per WP:INTERVIEW) is a dead link. I can't find any independent sourcing about them online (although I came across some different bands and albums called Purple Patch, so be careful when searching). GirthSummit (blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Patch_(Band) - this band is surely notable band: see this is a media coverage http://theindianmusicdiaries.com/its-not-just-about-music-rock-n-roll-is-much-more-than-that-in-conversation-with-purple-patch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annki777 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - Searching is tough because their name seems to be used for various landmarks, businesses, and pop culture stuff in their country. But even with some precision searches I can find nothing reliable on this band beyond the site copied by the last commenter, from a publication called the Indian Music Diaries. Even that is a relatively short interview. Charitably, we can say it's too soon for this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamka Tocinovski

Kamka Tocinovski (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 reliable sources can be found. Interstellarity (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beings (film)

Beings (film) (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)

Direct to video film, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I normally create articles about "terrible" films (or less known films) and I rarely have issues. Normally, if a film was reviewed by media outlets it's considered "notable" even when (like in this specific case) the film is just awful.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Default keep, a merge or redirect are possible. Tone 17:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Psychology

Quantum Psychology (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)

Was recently prodded after having been an uncited stub for years. De-prodded, with a couple of sources added which show the existence of the book. However, a WP:BEFORE couldn't turn up any references which show that the book meets either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 TT me 15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. But how is than pertinent to a redirect to Quantum mysticism, which already contains some content on the supposed application of quantum mechanics to psychological phenomena, together with useful framing context? Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored Alexbrn's comment which was inexplicably hidden by Pelirojopajaro. --JBL (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development Communication and Policy Sciences

Development Communication and Policy Sciences (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)

Yet another somewhat incomprehensible essay, likely a class project, with an assortment of original research and likely copyright violations. A good portion has no proper sourcing at all. Home Lander (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development communication policy science

Development communication policy science (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)

Reads like a long, somewhat incomprehensible essay. Possibly a class project, with plenty of original research, and likely unsalvageable as is. Home Lander (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The editor who created this article posted this edit summary: ‘I created and defined the term develpment communication policy science.’ Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps we should have an article on the concept. But the current article is unsalvageable, not least because the history suggests there could very well be uncaught copyvios. I'm fairly sure this is a class project, I have reason to think it's probably coming from the University of Philippines Open University. And some of the earlier edits are by editors called DCOMM330 or something 330 which may refer to this [2] "COMM 330 (Communication Policy and Planning)". Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Roode and Chad Gable

Bobby Roode and Chad Gable (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 reliable sources can be found. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, the article is just starting, so it's hard to see if it's notable or not due to the lack of sources and text. But, Gable and Roode were a team just for 8 months. During that period, won the title just for 60 days. Most of the sources I found are WP:ROUTINE, nothing focused on their work as tag team. I think the team is no notable and the info can be included in their individual articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand that the wikiproject created their own notability guidelines for tag teams but if this meets those guidelines then it is back to the drawing board. Heath Slater and Rhyno, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth, Air Boom, Angelina Love and Winter, and TnT (professional wrestling) were similar tag teams who were together for a short time and briefly held the tag team championship. WP:GNG take precedence and this isn't notable. Coverage should be more detailed than routine match results.LM2000 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fail even the loses reading of WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ntsele

Ntsele (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. Interstellarity (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are sources available, although scant and little more than appearance in king lists. Some of the print source histories listed in the Hlubi people#Further_reading may contain more? (Interstellarity, it may also have benefited from maintenance tags and Talk page discussion to see whether a distinct article can be sustained, rather than bringing this straight to AfD 4 hours after its creation?) AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AllyD, I was told not to AfD articles from NPP if it was created less than 3 hours ago. Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I was going to vote to Redirect back to Hlubi Kings, until I realised this was a very new article and may be a placeholder which the author intends to expand. This may be a case of WP:DONOTBITE. I recall having a stub that I had created and had under construction deleted by an over-officious admin, so that I had to start my article again. I was advised to tag such stubs as Underconstruction to avoid that happening. That was in the days of dial-up connections to the Internet. Having said that my potential target is a list, which could usefully be fleshed out with dates and other material, including a preamble describing of where their kingdom was. This all depends on how much is known about the various kings. If we know little but their names, that may be the best course of action. I do not favour having articles that will never be expanded beyond a stub, because literally nothing is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is going to take us down the rabbit hole, not only of Zulu vis a vis other black South African lineages, but may get us into the mess that this person pre-dates Shaka, and thus the Mfecane's reordering of the ethnic balances in what is today South Africa. Despite various attempts to read both the history of South Africa, and various works specifically on Shaka and his leagacy, I have never found enough to really feel expert in it. On the other hand the premature nominations of this article reminds me of the fate of the bios of Bruce C. Hafen and Alexander Schreiner, two people who when shortly after the articles were created I felt to say "I have not yet begun to cite." I also have a feel our article on Hlubi people is very inferior to what it could be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable enough for an article here. Sourcing for XHosa kings is not going to be as easy as sourcing for modern entertainers an so forth, but what we have is enough.-- Deepfriedokra 12:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard (comics)

Wildcard (comics) (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver Man

Shiver Man (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Anne Summers

Katherine Anne Summers (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishanti

Vishanti (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Boz. One or the other. Jhenderson 777 00:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Vishanti have been covered enough to satisfy GNG. I came across them with stuff I borrowed for Eternity (and still have yet to finish incorporating...)
    In the book Doctor Strange and Philosophy: The Other Book of Forbidden Knowledge, the Vishanti are mentioned in 7 of the contained essays. Several are in passing, but two are decent. Klofft discusses Strange's lack of faith, despite invoking the power of the god-like Vishanti in Doctor Strange, Moral Responsibility, and the God Question. Wright and Zehr discuss Strange's incantations to the Vishanti as parallels to him upholding his Hippocratic Oath and acting like a better physician after becoming Sorcerer Supreme in Doctor Strange, Master of the Medical and Martial Arts. In a separate work The Superheroes Devotional: 60 Inspirational Readings, Strauss discusses the Doctor Strange's relationship with the Vishanti and the parallels that can be drawn to a relationship with God before discounting them as similarities and not a relationship with God. I also saw some typical Top X stuff, but I won't bother with them.
    Obviously the article doesn't currently reflect this Notability, but the sources only need to WP:NEXIST. This notability should still be incorporated into the article at some point, when someone actually has time, when not looking for material and being able to transcribe it appropriately... Good thing WP:NORUSH... -2pou (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly are you seeing in "Doctor Strange and Philosophy?" I'm looking at the name of the group and individuals, but it all seems to be trivial. I guess the second one is something, but I'd say it's more relevant to Strange than this grouping. I feel like the issue with a lot of these comic articles recently is most of the sources are much more relevant to the hero than the side characters. TTN (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Didn't realize I wasn't watching. I was mainly referencing pages 210 and 240 for the two papers that I singled out from the rest of the book. It appears as though only p. 240 shows in the Google Books sample. I have an offline copy at the moment, but the strength of the other ref is about equivalent. Based on your comment, I believe you were able to see p. 240 and found that to be a passing mention. I just felt that references to religious beings in a comparative or contrasting light (although brief) were more than trivial plot. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just about anything Doctor Strange related is going to talk about this. If Doctor Strange is notable then so is this by common sense alone IMO. But I guess the burden of proof is on me. Jhenderson 777 06:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have access to 2pou's sources but WP:AGF is a very important philosophical point here on Wiki: we should assume good faith in 2pou's analysis of the sources and not simply vote delete because we can't access them. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. @BOZ:, @2pou:, and @FOARP: are right about the coverage. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @FOARP:Thanks for the mention to bring to attention I wasn't watching the page. Anyway, yes, there is AGF, but I did provide the Google Books links thinking that they were searchable in case people wanted to weigh in, so let me know if something isn't working for you. For a closer look, I think you should be able to use the search box on the links provided. It appears there are other access issues people are having issues as well. I'm not sure why the second might not be available for viewing... I thought that was the one easier to search. Maybe I can figure out a different way to link if need be. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian School of Budapest

International Christian School of Budapest (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)

Just found this stub article while patrolling recent changes. It seems IPs tried to add promotional and unsourced content, and I reverted them. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and found no good source in the internet. Per WP:NSCHOOL,

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. It does not seem like this school meets any of the criteria. If anyone can find multiple secondary reliable sources where this school has significant coverage, they are welcomed to add them to the article. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza📞 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the Budapest Times article in my WP:BEFORE, it's clearly not independent of the subject as it is written by an employee of the school (e.g., "And we’re growing – 2012-2013 brings our largest enrollment ever..."). Similarly I saw the Daily News Hungary article, but it's a one-sentence-mention, not significant coverage. Likewise I saw the Hungarian Free Press piece, but this hardly says anything about the school and is anyway written by a former pupil (not independent). I didn't see anything indicating notability. FOARP (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly said that Hungarian Free Press piece was not directly useful for establishing notability and that it was by a former student. Why are you repeating that?
This is a Hungarian school. Did you look at Hungarian sources? If not then I don't think your Before was sufficient. I don't read Hungarian, but I have already asked at the schools project for assistance from anyone who does in looking for sources. I am almost certain that an expensive foreign (English) high school with AP courses and a more-than-25-year history can be shown to be notable, regardless of what we have found so far. Meters (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at any source that mentioned the subject findable through Google. You openly admit that you didn't look at Hungarian sources but yet you still voted keep - so I'm not sure why you're raising this point. FOARP (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection. Your logic seems to be seriously flawed. I obviously think the subject is notable based on the English sources I have read. You seem to be to saying that I should not have formed an opinion that it was notable without having first read Hungarian sources. That's ridiculous. While I think that any claim that it is not notable .must ensure that there are no useful sources in Hungarian, it is certainly not necessary to do so to determine that it is notable. And that's why I raised the question of Hungarian sources, to answer your question. You state that you did WP:BEFORE so I asked if you looked at Hungarian sources. Meters (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a Hungarian school. Did you look at Hungarian sources? If not then I don't think your Before was sufficient". 1) I did look at the Hungarian sources, 2) you did not, 3) obviously I don't think the English-language directories and bare-mentions of the school are sufficient, 4) a good WP:BEFORE reviews all available relevant documents as a document may cast doubt on the notability of something rather than supporting it (e.g., it shows that there are multiple subjects with the same name). FOARP (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what I wrote, and thanks for finally giving a clear answer to the question I asked almost two weeks ago, whether you had looked at Hungarian sources. I accept that you did WP:BEFORE as you claimed. I am also well aware of your opinion on the notability of this subject(as is everyone else on this thread, I'm sure). Again, your apparent position that I cannot form an opinion that a subject is notable without first having looked at all available sources including those in foreign languages is simply wrong. So, are all the other KEEP opinions where editors did not look for Hungarian sources also invalid according to you? As I said, your logic is seriously flawed. Or, are you being intentionally obtuse? This is verging on WP:BLUDGEON and I will not reply to you again. I'm sure the admin who closes this AFD will give your position its due consideration.
I would be interested in hearing from the OP User:Masumrezarock100 and the third editor user:Bubbasax who thought this article should be deleted. Neither of them has commented since this article was improved. The OP is active, but Bubbasax was only active on En.Wikipedia that one day and may no longer be active. Meters (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I may look like active here, but I usually come here for replacing files hosted on Commons and revert vandalism. I totally had forgotten about this AFD. Regarding the article from Budapest Times, it did come up in my search results during WP:BEFORE but one source isn't nearly enough to establish notability. All other links I could find in the search results are profiles of the school and none of them are what I'd call independent sources. For the record, I do not speak/understand Hungarian, so it is hard for me to assess a Hungarian source's quality. To be honest, I couldn't find any news article/reliable good source about this school on Google search not even in Hungarian. Please ping me if you reply. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 00:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regarding the newly added sources:
  • 1) The International Christian School of Budapest website is clearly not independent of the subject,
  • 2) The ACSI website is simply a directory listing and not significant coverage, arguably not independent as it is part of the same religious schools movement as the school,
  • 3) The Middle States Association website is simply a directory listing and not significant coverage,
  • 4) "Displaying Diaspora: Chinese Christian Presence in Hungary after 1989" gives only a single, brief mention of the subject ("the International Christian School of Budapest and Hungarian schools with good educational reputation are also popular among Chinese parents" - and that's it),
  • 5) The Middle States Association news article simply lists the school in a long list of schools that they accredit,
  • 6) The "East-West Church Ministry Report" article is not a reliable source as it's a self-published news-sheet of a religious organisation, is not independent of the subject as the writers appear linked to it, and gives only a bare mention of it in a single sentence ("One of the major factors for missions relocating regional offices to Budapest has been the development of the International Christian School of Budapest, an accredited program (grades 1-12) with 150 students")
  • 7) The AP Course Audit site is not significant coverage, is simply a directory,
  • 8) The ACT International Test Centers list is simply a directory and as such not sigcov.
In summary, this is simply ref spam that does nothing to save the article and as such my delete vote stands. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FOARP, I appreciate your analysis of sources, but I disagree with your charcterization that they comprise ref spam. The Association of Christian Schools International, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Advanced Placement, and American College Testing sources represent organizations that require member schools to meet rigorous organizational and curricular standards. The Middle States Association, for example, carries the approval of both the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the United States Department of Education, and the Association of Christian Schools International has the approval of the National Council for Private School Accreditation. While this may seem like a bureucratic paper shuffle, in reality the accreditation process identifies a school's strengths and challenges as measured against standards that include an institution's planning, finances, faculty, curriculum, assessment of students' achievements, physical plant, and student support services. So sources that appear to you to be only directory entries, to me represent evidence that verifies the relative excellence of an institution. When an institution falls sort of these standards, it must address the recommendations of an accreditor's report. Losing accreditation usually means a loss of finances and students. In a way, this WP:RS situation is comparable to the use of Google Scholar data to verify a faculty member meets notability under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The relative scarcity of news sources for international schools, that for all practical purposes must be both in English and also online, should allow for the use of evidence a school is accredited, provides AP or IB curricula, has governmental approval, or provides pre-college testing through ACT or College Board testing. These are all evidence of notability. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is great for the school, and if I was deciding which school to send my kids to in Budapest would certainly influence me, but in the context of a delete discussion on wiki does not amount to much, since these bodies are only mentioning this school as a school they accredit in long lists, and provide no other detail about it. The coverage from them does not constitute significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We almost invariably keep articles on secondary schools, which I take to include one that teaches to US grade 12. I might be happier if the article were able to indicate whether this is a school of 50 pupils (which would probably be NN) or 500+, which I would expect to have a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not invariably keep high schools, and indeed I have seen many instances of them being deleted. That might have been the practise pre-2017 but since then WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires that they pass WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: We had an older mention of 150 students, but current claims are 230 to about 235. I've added the 230 from the school's fast facts page. Meters (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do invariably keep high schools eventually unless we can find no reference. WP:GNG is easy to prove for a genuine school- as we have to prove 'wikinotability' (existence of published references) not notablity as used in common speech. Every school is subject to independant inspection (fire safety not just academic) and in most countries appraisal for building control. All solid RS material. We only have to prove that the reports will exist not to present them to be read. Silly when you think about it. So we do invariably keep high schools eventually. ClemRutter (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Wikinotability" does not simply mean proof of existence. It means, at the very least, at least two instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources - and these are still lacking. Simply being listed in directories or lists of accredited schools does not demonstrate notability. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response- still keep A quick glance using the search 'International schools in Budapest list' shows that there are 14 international schools. The comparison sites are written for the American ex-pat community give a variety of links to follow. Google the name and there are 12.3 million links. The sites advertising for chaplains and teachers give detailed descriptions. They stress everything is done in English as that is the students only common language. Debating nuances of RS when talking about Central European countries is really a diversion from writing a encyclopedia.A parent gets basic facts from Schools Database or for a second more Brit orientated independant source look at |Good schools guide. This school doesn't make it, hardly surprising as they do an American K-12 curriculum not IGCSE or IB. Teach Beyond comes up with some excellent photoss, and disturbing facts. ICSB is described as a missionary school, where the teachers work as volunteers or on a small $200 stipend. They are unqualified. We need the article just for this horrifying fact. ClemRutter (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here are two searches that may be run to find sources:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrinder Singh (disambiguation)

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

Not necessary considering how short the page is. Could be easily solved with a hatnote at the top of “Amrinder Singh” KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per User:PamD work. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Very often in Punjabi names, the last name isn't used, so Amrinder Singh Gill or Amrinder Singh Raja Warring could also be referred to as Amrinder Singh, as is even evident from those articles as they stand and the spellings Amarinder and Amrinder are used interchangeably, as is evident from the references in those articles. Therefore there are at least 4 listings for the dab (someone who actually works on dabs - PamD et al, can fit these two in). —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Have tidied it up and restored names. An entry should not be removed just because it has been proposed for deletion, only if it is deleted. Have restored singer's sourced full name to his article as it had been lost in series of edits. Useful dab page. PamD€
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. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Minister

Beat Minister (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 composer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Covert advertising. scope_creepTalk 13:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 13:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Music

PlayStation Music (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)

Basically a service provided by Spotify on PlayStation. No need for separate article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielė Gylytė–Hein

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

Not notable pianist and honorary consul. Declined prod. Renata (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Honorary consul" from a country to a subnational unit of another country is not an "inherently" notable role that would exempt her from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing, nothing else here adequately demonstrates that she would have gotten into Wikipedia for any other reason besides the "diplomatic" job, and the sourcing is not adequate to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honorary consul to a unit of another country does not make inherent notability, and there is nothing else that would satisfy GNG here. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sixth Renaissance

The Sixth Renaissance (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)

Academic concepts can be notable, but here this one does not seem to be (fails WP:GNG). As far as I can tell, this term has been used by one niche academic article ([8]) which according to GScholar has not been cited by anyone yet, and no other scholar has used this term. I also searched for the Polish rendering of this ("szósty renesans") and I am not seeing any discussion in Polish sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also could not find any independent sourcing for this particular notion of a Sixth Renaissance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be entirely based on one guy's interpretation, with no independent uptake (thanks for cecking the Polish term). --16:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete a Neologism. If the person who developed the concept is notable, something might be merged to a BIO-article. However in a period when Latin and Greek are no longer regularly taught in school, we are surely in a period when the classics are in decline, not renaissance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JaiHind TV

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

I think the Article is not elegible to be on Wikipedia. The information Provided in the page is Fake and non reliable with poor citations. Shivmagari (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawid Krzyżowski

Dawid Krzyżowski (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 sportperson bio created by a blocked editor (sock). Not clear if he passes WP:SPORTBIO, and the coverage in Polish is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG (I read Polish, and sources used are very niche - local news portals and like, most are mentions in passing or reprinted press releases or little better). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1)

Je suis une célébrité, sortez-moi de là ! (series 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains only Original Research that is mostly fan-based, and holds no citations whatsoever. It fails to address things such as an episode list and ratings, and thus holds no notability whatsoever. The article should be deleted if no solution can be presented to correct the issues it raises. GUtt01 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No evidence that it is "only original research" or "fan-based", the article seems perfectly standard for these type of TV shows, and the topic is obviously notable (see e.g. this article. I'm usually not a fan of the "AfD is not for cleanup" mantra, as what some people describe as cleanup are often very fundamental problems, but in this case the article, which could use improvements of course, is already perfectly acceptable as is. Add one or two sources, easily found, tag whatever you truly believe to ve dubious, and remove all wrong information (if any), but don't delete a neutral, factual article about a notable topic. Fram (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's the problem here. The article has serious issues, and if you haven't seen the discussion regarding I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1), you can't really state Keep for an article unless you can see the underlining argument behind this one's AfD. Also note, that I stated the article should be deleted only if "no solution can be presented to correct the issues" being raised. GUtt01 (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one on that discussion wants deletion though, the opinions are split between keep or redirect. Your nomination statement here should have indicated at least that the necessary information is already in the main article, but instead you went for "only original research" and "mostly fan-based", which are not convincing reasons to get rid of this (and the many others you also nominated). This is the kind of topic which gets articles in "Le Nouvel Observateur" (see above), but also Le Figaro[9] or Le Parisien[10]. Not solely reporting the outcome, also reviewing other episodes[11] with ratings[12]. So basically all you need to show that this season is a notable topic and with plenty of potential to make this decent article a much better one. Fram (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there is only one season of this French edition of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! covered out of two. That raises the question of needing to have separate articles for this programme on only a handful of seasons, of which only one got coverage and the other was never given that. To not understand the arguments raised is a serious concern - those who raise redirect have voiced arguments about how these types of programmes are handled. GUtt01 (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:WAX argument. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Failure to do WP:BEFORE, particularly the section on alternatives to deletion and performing your own search for references prior to taking the article to AFD. Specifically, the 2006 season of this program was a notable flop (see, e.g., 1 2 3) and this can be demonstrated in reliable sources. Per WP:BEFORE it is for the nominator to assure themselves that there is no alternative for deletion before they bring the article to AFD. The second season (i.e., this year's) is with a different format and arguably a different topic (in many cases a 13-year-long-gap would lead people to think that they are actually different programs). FOARP (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to main article as after 9 years of 0 sources, it clearly fails WP:V. Seeing as how there is almost no prose at all and it is only 2 tables, there is no reason why this can't be merged into the main article if deemed important (albeit, again, unsourced for 9 years). --Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth. CSD G11, unambiguous advertising. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIOReview Magazine

CIOReview Magazine (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)

Entirely unsourced article about a magazine that makes no real claims to notability. I can find no independent sources that discuss this magazine in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. Hugsyrup 10:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 3)

Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 3) (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 following article is one of six being nominated for deletion; the other five include:

Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus! (season 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons for these include:

  • Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated, and mainly would be relevant to fans of the programme, and thus can't be retained. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Trails, and special challenges.
  • Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each season, bar the 3rd and 7th. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go; the table in the 8th with the pictures should be remade to match the others, minus the pictures, while those in the 3rd and 7th have to be dealt with as well.
  • No Episode Table - Articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the seasons. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.
  • Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving. The 3rd and 8th also have no infobox for these respective seasons, unlike the other existing articles for the programme.
  • Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check all those used in the articles and remove those not valid; any for fan-based items will not be relevant to remain.
  • Ratings Tables - Only the 10th season up to the 13th have such a table. And those from the 11th to the 13th are designed with dividers which are not acceptable. These tables must be linear and not feature dividers at all and need to be amended.

Additionally, none of the seasons before the 3rd, and between the 3rd and 7th are covered. Their absence will raise questions over whether the nominated articles should remain or not. In all, these issues require an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely be that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First related to Hindi (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 very vague and confusing list that appears to have the potential to include any 'first' that is related to Hindi. Even from the two items already in the list, it's clear that this could span a near-infinite number of items. The title is confusing, inclusion criteria is unclear, and there seems little to salvage from this. Hugsyrup 10:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Too vague, and as can be seen from the first entry this is something better suited as prose in the article Hindi rather than in a list format. Would also be difficult to find an adequate and descriptive title for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too general - see WP:SALAT. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete its not that "the list is too broad/general", the list simply doesnt make any sense. The only in the article says:Here the names of the first writers related to Hindi, books, places etc. have been given. But "first related to Hindi" as in what sense? Also, most of the list would lead to WP:OR. One of the two entries is already original research, "the first university to teach Hindi". An un-encyclopaedic list that is too vague to understand whats it about. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunt celebru, scoate-mă de aici! (Romanian series 1)

Sunt celebru, scoate-mă de aici! (Romanian series 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to have any notability for existing, as it mostly focuses on a format of detailing out Original Research on events suited for any fans of the programme. The fact that no other seasons are also detailed of the programme leaves little choice but for the article to be deleted, and any notable, sourced information, to be merged with the article covering the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kändisdjungeln

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

The article fails to focus on the programme and detail about its format, history and reception, seeming more focused on the season it ran for and the inclusion of Fan-focused Original Research. The article has not notability for existing, and should be deleted if no other solution can be given to change it out of its current arrangement. GUtt01 (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As there is only one season of the show, there is no problem.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you argue in the other AfDs that the info is already in the parent article, but in this case this is the parent article. Topic is clearly notable (enough sources in article, plus things like this. Fram (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "only" notable if it includes information on the programme, NOT JUST A SEASON OF IT!GUtt01 (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty logic. There was only one season. Not a big hit in Sweden. This is the information needed. Another article in the series itself would contain one or two sentences. BabbaQ (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BEFORE not done, subject is a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I'm not sure if the people who talk about WP:GNG have actually read (or have been able to read) the sources; apart from the fact that most of the sources themselves are borderline RS – one press release and three brief pieces in either Aftonbladet or Expressen, notorious for their focus on gossip and clickbait headlines – they are simply notices published ahead of time, listing the participants, with no commentary on the show after it had begun broadcasting. I found one press release mentioning the name of the winner, and the charity he donated the money to, but if that's the only thing written about the show I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. The press release in the article was presented as two different sources since two different papers had printed it, and that is often a sign of enthusiastic editors having scraped the barrel of any source they can find. The show is not notable because it had notable participants (and the focus of those articles are on the participants, not on the TV show), or because it is a local version of a notable show (per WP:NOTINHERITED). It is listed in I'm_a_Celebrity...Get_Me_Out_of_Here!#International_versions, and any relevant information could be merged there. I don't see notability for a standalone article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further comment: I had never heard of the Swedish show and had only heard the title of the English-language one, and I can say that reading the article Kändisdjungeln gives me very little information. There are tables (unsourced, apparently original research) listing who won which trial and who was eliminated when, but they are very difficult to understand since jargon such as "safe" and "bushtucker" is never explained, nor is the column "Number of Stars". Since there aren't any sources talking about the show itself, those things can't be explained, and so it is essentially an article for the fans of the show. I'm guessing that the concepts are explained with sources in the article about the original show, and that is a reason to have this title redirect to that article (since we can obviously not add sources that explain a different TV show and don't mention Kändisdjungeln to the article about the Swedish version – the rules are presumably not identical, and as we can't know that, well...) --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear why this editor has decided that the Goteborgs-Posten article is a press-release. It is not marked as such, it quotes Aftonbladet (which a press-release would be unlikely to do), and it is from a WP:NEWSORG. The same goes for all the other articles that they marked "Press Releases". Please note that Google occasionally marks things as press-releases or blogs that are in fact news articles, particularly from non-English-language sources. There are numerous instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that have now been added to the article and which, given their critical nature, clearly were not press-releases. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has argued to delete (or keep) the article based on its current state, as far as I can see, so the "no cleanup" comment doesn't address anything. (In fact, the article has been cleaned up a bit during this AfD process.) Also, who here has a conflict of interest, that they would need to use the article talk page for edit requests? Sorry, I find that reasoning rather baffling. As forArticle subject falls within WP:GNG – simply repeating that it is so doesn't automagically make it so. Where is the significant coverage in independent sources? There are three press releases and two gossip type pieces published when the show was in its planning stages, about some celebrities that had been cast for it. (I was wrong in my post above; I said that there were three of the latter, but in fact the Aftonbladet piece is also a press release reprint – I'll fix that reference.) Again: there needs to be sourcing about the show itself. --bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A number of new references regarding this show (a notable flop) have been found and added to the article. Given the critical nature of the coverage of the show (it describes it as a "fiasco" and a "disaster") this coverage clearly cannot be criticised for not being independent of the show. Similarly this is coverage in what appears to be reliable sources (e.g., Aftonbladet and Expressen). FOARP (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, I didn't properly read about the section regarding Nomination Closure. As there is one person stating "Delete", I can't withdraw nomination on this AfD. Hence, why my earlier Withdraw Nomination move had to be reverted by me. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GUtt01 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 1)

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 1) (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 following article is one of six being nominated for deletion; the other five include:

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons for these include:

  • Original Research - Much of the articles are fed with OR that is considerably inflated, and mainly would be relevant to fans of the programme, and thus can't be retained. If the articles are to remain, various layouts of information will have to be removed; most particular will be all sections relating to Trails, and special challenges.
  • Difficult Results tables - We got two table in use detailing the results of the contest for each series. One is simple and efficient, detailing each celebrity that partook in the series, their most notable work, and the result of their performance. The other is more complicated, use too many colours, and sees to have a split in it detailing elimination of celebrities. While the second's only notable factor is the voting results, it's clearly problematic. The only solution I can suggest is removing the second table, and placing any citations linked to results into the first table; voting results may be retained, but only if there is a general idea of how to do so, otherwise they will have to go.
  • No Episode Table - Articles don't include an episode table listing the episodes of the seasons. If the articles are to remain, such an episode list must be included; short sums of the episode should also be written out, detailing a brief summary of events covered in the episode.
  • Leads - These will have to be amended and cleaned up, as they really could do with improving.
  • Existing References - Any references from sources deemed unreliable will need to be removed. Editors should double-check all those used in the articles and remove those not valid; any for fan-based items will not be relevant are to remain.

If editors can determine how best to deal with the issues I have pointed out, and figure out what to do with the articles in order to rectify the problems, then they could avoid deletion. But this will acquire an effort by editors to make certain to combat the issues and clean up the articles in question. If nothing is considered, it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. GUtt01 (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion. - They already are nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - "it will be most likely that the articles will be facing possible deletion" - means that that is a possibility if the consensus on the articles does not make suggestions on how to deal with them. If anyone suggest KEEP, they've got to understand one thing: Information that would only sate Fans and is purely OR cannot be included. I should also point out my decision to conduct an AfD is to provoke discussion on how to deal with the issues raised, not to simply put them out for deletion (that is the only action if nothing is done to deal with the problems). One of the more key issues these articles have is they list extensive breakdowns of the seasons regarding there tasks, a factor that is pure OR and has little to non-existant sourcing. To simply put them in as a major problem, because who is going to want to know this other than those who are fans of the programme? And the table being used to cover results and eliminations is so complicated and complex - what kind of editor thought that was going to be useful? It's excessive and overinflated. GUtt01 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not for provoking discussion on how to deal with article content. WP:BEFORE C.1. clearly states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If the purpose of this AfD is simply to promote discussion about how to deal with article content, then it should be procedurally closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hear what others have to say first before simply closing it. The AfD that is ongoing over the season article for the British original has shown a split opinion on the matter, though a number have raised concerns regarding these type of articles for these types of programmes and the style and layout they facilitate. I do believe that if there is a general consensus for cleanup, then the appropriate template for it should be added to these articles when this AfD is closed. GUtt01 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE - The British programme has other issues that don't affect this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look between the more recent season articles for the Australian edition and then those of the British edition. Note that despite some differences, there is a similarity in layout. Arguing WP:OSE is not a reasonable point because that can cut both ways. GUtt01 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Layout is an article content issue which, as has been stated here and elsewhere, is not what AfD is about. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Just deleting a redirect. Article has been draftified. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Shukla

Aryan Shukla (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:BIO. Complete lack of notability until suddenly last week an "article" on Asian Times[13]. Impressive, until you realise that this isn't the Asia Times (which is notable), but some dubious site claiming to be "AsianTimes is one of the leading news websites in the industry which reports on everything related to the Business and Startup sector around the world. " Looking at this article, I doubt it. The other sources in the article are primary sources, and I couldn't find other reliable independent sources online. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection, Nevada

Perfection, Nevada (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)

Imperfect article consisting mostly of unnotable plot details, the rest being which movies and TV series were set there. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bell Peaks

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. #1, #6, and #9 are database entries. #2, #3, and #4 are interviews/profiles on sketchy websites. (Please note that these are NSFW.) #10 is a gimmicky listicle of pornographic performers' political views which includes a short quote from Ms. Peaks. The remaining refs are industry award rosters or press releases: the awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and didn't find significant biographical coverage, only several other gimmick "pornographic actors share their views on Foo" articles with quotes from her, some based on the youtube series "Ask A Pornstar": [14][15]; news coverage of her appearance at a South African pornography expo[16]; some more interviews[17][18]; and assorted passing mentions. Cheers, gnu57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu57 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The award wins didn't count even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. The article fails to cite non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. My own search for sources makes me agree with the nominator. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I created this article when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. With time, Anna Bell Peaks has received steady significant coverage. This AVN article statesAs in years past, Anna Bell Peaks had great media exposure in 2018. In April she was mentioned in an article in GQ magazine for building her brand and making herself one of the last few true porn stars. And indeed, there are multiple non trivial coverage about her. But it is a little difficult to find using conventional search engines. If one turns off the "safe search", and enables explicit content; then they would see many results. According to this AVN article:Last year Anna won Perfect Pussy and Best Girl/Girl Scene with Felicity Feline for Brazzers’ “Bloodthirsty Biker Babes.” In 2017 she took home trophies for Best Tits, Best Model Website, Scene of the Year with Small Hands for Squirt or Die (BurningAngel), and Best Group Scene with Nikki Hearts, Leigh Raven and Chad Alva for Cindy Queen of Hell (BurningAngel). In 2016 she won Starlet of the Year and Best Model Website. On August 7, 2019; she hosted YNOT cam awards [19] [20].
Other significant coverage, including some shared but still non-trivial coverage (in most of the articles) includes these articles: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and (xbiz listing of the award nominations). People from adult industry arent usually covered in mainstream media/coverage. Thats one of the reasons why WP:PORNBIO was created. Even though not mainstream, Peaks has received steady enough significant coverage in reliable sources from porn industry to satisfy WP:GNG. She also passes #2 of WP:ENT per this, and this. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took back my vote at 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC). —usernamekiran(talk) 17:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Usernamekiran: All of those AVN articles are press releases/PR content: note that the urls are https://avn.com/business/press-release/.... I have no idea how significant the YNOT cam award ceremony is within the pornography industry, but the announcements/advertisements for it don't amount to independent coverage of Ms. Peaks. The other sources you've suggested are more gimmicky "pornstar opinions on Foo" articles, mainly tabloid churnalism of the "Ask a Porn Star" youtube series: for instance, the Daily Mail and Sun articles both cover a youtube video in which about a dozen different pornographic actresses talk about alternate career paths; both include the same short quote from Ms. Peaks. Cheers, gnu57 17:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • PORNBIO was deprecated because, shunned by reliable mainstream sources, porn is all too often left with promotional sources and the porn itself. That is not a good basis for verifiable and balanced articles. The AVN articles are clearly marked as press releases (promotional primary sources). Tabloids like The Sun are not reliable, and WP:DAILYMAIL is expressly banned as a reference for verification of facts or as evidence of notability. The other sources, as the nominator states, are "ask a pornstar" quotations constitute trivial coverage. As for awards, without acknowledgement of an achievement by independent reliable sources, they don't count as significant enough the satisfy WP:ENT and winners lists are too trivial to satisfy WP:BASIC. The rationale behind PORNBIO (as with other SNG's) was that reliable source coverage would likely be found eventually. I subscribed to that belief myself. However, after 12 years, consensus is that the PORNBIO rationale does not hold water. Even when PORNBIO was in effect, award nominations were removed because award ceremonies (AVN especially) tend to nominate almost everybody for something. AFAIK, the Inked Award never met the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO or even the ultra-permissive award-has-a-Wikipedia-article test of 12 years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on most of the points presented by both of you. But it is not an isolated coverage. The subject/Peaks receiving coverage is a routine thing, persistence. That is something for a person from porn industry. Also, (for a pornstar) 1 million followers is quite a fanbase, as stated by few sources. Thus passing #2 of WP:ENT. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not wikilawyering to state the PORNBIO is dead and that it was killed for good reasons. And to restate an important point: porn awards are considered self promotion by the porn industry. Counts of Twitter followers are controversial even in the mainstream, never mind in an industry notorious for bombing the net with self promotion. Internet flooding was a concern written into the original PORNBIO guideline way back in 2006. Porn can be notable, but it needs coverage by trustworthy sources. The new consensus is that exempting porn from regular demands for quality sources was bad policy. It's not about bureaucracy, it's about Wikipedia's maturing as a credible reference work. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not know why anybody is discussing PORNBIO since it no longer exists. I agree with Gene93k. According to our current standards, which are the only standards that count now, this person is not notable. A "million followers' is marketing baloney in the age of lying bots, fake social media accounts, and stacked voting. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not porn industry sources that lie all the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I Banged My Tattooed Stepsister in the Ass" is a seminal masterpiece and was robbed at the Oscars that year, but the coverage in media outside of AVN and other in-house/in-porn-industry media does not exist for this person. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per previously mentioned reasons.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above arguements. Fails GNG and other notability guidelines.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as G12. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Trondl (musician)

Alexander Trondl (musician) (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 a drummer of a metal band. A WP:BEFORE found not significant achievement or significant independent, reliable source to indicate a stand alone page in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Watt

Dusty Watt (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, WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACADEMIC? Not sure if the last one covers the article. There also seems to be a COI issue as the subject's son is the creator and the main of two content contributors, the second of which would be reasonable to assume is a close relative of the subject. 2.O.Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Labex Labaki

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

This is so comically promotional it's borderline G11, but I figured I'd take it to AfD just in case. Almost all the sources cited are not independent, including Labaki's website and businesses that sponsor him.

A Google search wasn't much more productive. The best I found was this interview in Bass Musician, which is an online-only publication with a narrow audience. Everything else I found is either trivial or not independent or both.

Additionally, a major contributor, Guygosis, has a barely-declared COI (as in, he mentions it in the captions of images he's uploaded like File:A picture of michel labaki.jpg, but nowhere else) since he is (or was) "the media manager of 8e Art entertainment" and "Michel Labaki is one of our exclusive artists". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If he had achieved more notability the article could be cleaned up to remove the blatantly promotional puffery, but he has not made the leap beyond some esoteric experts. He does have a cover story at Bass Musician magazine [27] and a few other pieces there, though the nominator has a good point on this being a non-notable magazine, and I also found a brief write-up in a similar publication called No Treble, but these are of interest to a very small community. Even those are few in number, and his albums, appearances, and workshops have not been noticed anywhere else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. An event with no lasting coverage at this time. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISS wave

ISS wave (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 WP:BEFORE search did not turn up lasting coverage of this event. Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with International Space Station because the article fails GNG. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If there is a concern about attribution, any admin can retrieve the list of pre-merge contributors and place it on the relevant Talk page. However, the merge target was later redirected (not merged), so it is not clear that we are currently using any content that needs to be attributed. RL0919 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Defence Force

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

I cannot find any academic or journalistic publications that have discussed this concept in a meaningful way. The article is little more than a collection of in-universe information that would only interest the most obsessive of Warhammer 40,000 fans. Furthermore, the title of the article is far too general for it to be a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 15:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Thomas Watt

Benjamin Thomas Watt (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)

Clear fail of WP:GNG and there seems to be a major issue regarding WP:NPOV seeing as the main (and one of only three) contributor is the subject himself. I also think it’s reasonable to assume at least one of the other two content contributors is also the subject himself, but that is only speculation. 2.O.Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being the world’s first openly gay boxing judge does lend that at least some of the content should be merged to other articles. The remaining content doesn’t seem to be contested as much as bordering promotional. There is also plenty of primary sources that could be used as he is a vlogger. What’s surprising is that anything exists, as judges are not known for getting any attention, and boxing, even less. I would merge what we can for now, and draftify as he’s one or two articles too soon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two independent sources I could find were the i.stuff.co.nz article you mentioned and this from gaynz.com. Do two articles in the space of five years satisfy GNG? Or does WP:SUSTAINED come into play? I’m still trying to familiarise myself with the guideline. Also, I find the whole "first openly gay boxing judge" aspect to be very dubious; as you said, boxing judges rarely gain any attention, so how can one know if Steve Gray or Tony Weeks aren’t openly gay? There could be thousands of openly gay boxing judges that haven’t been interviewed by media. The subject might just be the first person to state their sexuality in an interview. I suppose that’s a completely different gripe though. — 2.O.Boxing 11:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you’d need a source that counters him being the first or only gay boxing judge. It’s not a field I’m familiar with so I can only guess there are other sources out there but I’d rather wait until a few more mainstream sources report on him.
  • Not really. It’s a small enough and easily defined field that if *anyone* else said they were also an openly gay boxing judge we’d report that too and NPOV represent the facts. I think Watt still comes out ahead on that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But which "fact" is to be reported? World's first, or New Zealand's first? One potentially reliable source says "world’s first" and another says "New Zealand's first". — 2.O.Boxing 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole article is a blatant COI, and inappropriate WP:Self-promotion. (The subject of the article did not help his case by recently deleting the "COI" notice (it was later reinstated by another editor).) While this person might arguably be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, this should be rewritten from scratch by other people, with no involvement from the subject. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the real question is if the present article is fixable through normal editing practices; absolutely. So deleting only serves to waste time and remove the COI traces from its history which also seems like a bad idea.
And no one has yet to assert that anything is untrue, just that some of it is self-serving. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear, could you (User:Thomastheboxingwriter) please explain any relationship that you have with the subject (Benjamin Thomas Watt)? Are you Benjamin Thomas Watt yourself?? Ross Finlayson (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not Benjamin Thomas Watt. I have never met Benjamin so no relationship with him. but he is well know in the boxing community in New Zealand. --Thomastheboxingwriter (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a bit difficult to believe, given that almost all of your edits have been on Benjamin's page, and you were the editor who chose to delete the page's "COI" tag on 17 November 2019 (UTC)? Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You created your account 6 minutes before your editing spree on this page and ended with an edit to Geovana Peres whom, as you wrote, is a friend of Watts. Not buying it. The only way you could have made it more obvious is if you had edited your dads page, though I see you have taken the time to comment on his deletion page too. Interesting. --Pokelova (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey I thought it is time for me to weigh in here. I am the creator of the article and yes it is about me. I made this page back in 2015 because well my own ignorance and over excited for doing the things I enjoy doing. I stopped editing the page in 2018 because I realised that making the page and continuing editing it probably was wrong thing to do and so Obviously a Conflict of interest. If the Article gets kept, Deleted or any other action I accept that as I want to do what is best for Wikipedia. --Bennyaha (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Based on the history, this is a clear case of "Conflict of interest" and WP:SELFPROMOTE article. I also suspect Thomastheboxingwriter is the same person with User:Bennyaha; they are Benjamin Thomas Watt. User:Bennyaha has just admitted that he is in fact writing about himself. This is a straight forward NO NO in Wikipedia as per WP:NPOV. Strongly delete! - Jay (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I checked the references given. The article / person fails WP:GNG. The references in this article are "many" but some of them are no longer exist, some about other people, while most are not sufficient to prove his notability - Jay (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information and communication technologies for development

Information and communication technologies for development (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)

As discussed at WP:ANI, virtually incomprehensible article, seemingly mostly original research, about what appears to be a series of somewhat loosely-related topics rather than one topic in general. Home Lander (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Kay

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

Not seeing any signs that WP:MUSICIAN is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Mixed Breed Obedience Registry

American Mixed Breed Obedience Registry (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)

Largely uncited almost orphan (one main space article links to it) that appears to have folded. Google search finds no link to a current webpage, and the link provided in the article appears to be a law firm now. Google books show a number of passing references in published books but in my opinion not sufficient to establish notability. Cavalryman (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chizer

Chizer (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)

Completely fails GNG. Currently the article has a single unreliable source, when conducting a Google search I have found a single book that mentions the cross. Cavalryman (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jug (dog)

Jug (dog) (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 GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. Google books shows up the usual “owners guides” and “complete owners manuals” from authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable, but nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elo dog

Elo dog (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 GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. Any animal with a trademarked name is an instant red flag for me. I could locate only a single attributable passing mention on Google books, not enough to establish notability. Perhaps in time a kennel club will recognise these dogs and they will become notable, but the breeders will need to relinquish their trademark (and their business model) so for now TOOSOON. Cavalryman (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Francisco

Judge Francisco (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)

@Piotrus: prodded this article and the following three with the rationaleFictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.. I redirected them per WP:BRD and WP:ATD-R, but they have been reverted three times each. I'm getting very close to WP:3RR, so I'll just take all four articles here. ミラP 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judge Sinfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judge Volt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 00:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_29&oldid=1142613154"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 29, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.