Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 18

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 28 (Sat) September 27 (Fri) September 26 (Thu) More...

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

< October 17	October 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To explain my reasoning, none of the keep votes actually made a strong policy based arguments and the delete side provided clear evidence of coming up short after thorough source searching. To be clear, journalists are notable when people write about them in independent reliable sources (basically GNG and not inherited) so arguments to the contrary do not grip. Spartaz 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajesh Mahapatra

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

Non notable journalist who does not meet WP:GNG. Some of the articles have been written by the subject himself. Other sources do not have in-depth, significant coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Definitely notable senior journalist who has been in the news himself at least twice. The references to AP articles are citations to show that he actually was AP's India correspondent. He has contributed to or participated in four or five different media platforms just based on what I have sourced so far. Additional sourcing is available which can be added by other editors or me. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@AltruisticHomoSapien: Simply being a journalist does not warrant notability by itself. A topic needs to have in-depth independent coverage to meet the general criteria of notability, which the subject being discussed lacks clearly. None of the sources you cited have in-depth coverage.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: He is a senior journalist who was in the news in his capacity as a senior editor of one of India's top English language dailies. He has interviewed people such as Raghuram Rajan. He has hosted townhalls featuring Rahul Gandhi. He has moderated discussions featuring Subramanian Swamy and Jay Panda on different occasions. I have added some of these links in the External Links section. All these serve to establish his notability. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@AltruisticHomoSapien: We require coverage about him not by him. Can you point to even one reference that you believe has non trivial coverage. This is probably the only source that addresses the subject directly but lacks in-depth coverage and is an announcement--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: Notability is collective. I just saw this interview AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@AltruisticHomoSapien: Thanks for putting your point forward but the subject does not seem to pass the minimum notability criteria. I would leave it to a closing admin to decide whether or not it should be kept.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, has sufficient coverage to pass the standards of WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Could you please clarify how he passes WP:BASIC and show references that you claim to have sufficient coverage?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The references provided in the article that are from secondary sources are non trivial coverage, they all add up to establish notability despite the lack of in-depth coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Agree with you that sources are all secondary. However, there are not enough non trivial sources to demonstrate the notability as per WP:BASIC.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Seems notable if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Foxnpichu: would you mind explaining as to how he's notable?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As Tayi Arajakate stated, the subject has several secondary non-trivial sources to back him up. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Foxnpichu: like?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources present in the article, minus some like the Twitter one. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep A notable Journalist passes GNG. CleanAmbassy (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

GNG requires "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As stated above, article is mostly sourced to articles that have been written by the subject and not independent of him, and a few passing mentions in secondary which do not add up to SIGNCOV. It clearly fails GNG.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNhiRUAkU4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in-depth source analysis needed; the reliable coverage needs to be about the individual, not written by them
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. The sources in the article are either a collection of his work or mentions in passing. I searched Google, JSTOR, NYT and Academic OneFile but could not find sources that profiled Mahapatra, show special recognition or report on an accolade for his work. He is not notable enough yet to have an article. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: Did you check Google News? AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AltruisticHomoSapien:, yes I did, and I just checked them again. The sources I found in Google News were not WP:RS because they were news articles written by Mahapatra or mentions in passing. Were there sources from Google News that you thought showed notability? If so, post them below and I will analyse them. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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 result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Highschool Football League

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

Fails WP:GNG per concerns raised by both me and User:Spiderone; lacks reliable sources, and isn't detailed. JTZegers (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - a tricky case, this one. For whatever reason, Taiwan seems to allocate a lot of media coverage to secondary school football. There is probably enough coverage out there to make a good argument for passing WP:GNG. A very quick search reveals all of which are leading news sources in Taiwan reporting significantly about this league. And those were merely the first four sources that came up on Google News when typing in the Chinese version of the league's name. I think the article calling it 'second-level' is misleading as it made me think that this was literally the second tier league of Taiwanese football, which it isn't. It's an amateur competition between secondary schools. Is there an argument to move this to draft space perhaps? Spiderone 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep on the basis of the sources found by Spiderone, likely meets GNG. Giant Snowman 18:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 01:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Shahin Rostami

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Associate Professor. Non-notable. scope_creep 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Hard to figure out exactly what he does, but whether it is computer science or some form of engineering, or both, the GScholar h-index of 9 is too low for satisfying WP:PROF#C1 at this time, and there does not seem to be much else here. Nsk92 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete per Nsk92. "Weak" because I'm not sure how much to rely on citation count/h-index in this apparently amorphous field. Agree, though, that there seems nothing else to go on. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are too low for WP:NPROF C1, particularly in what I believe to be a high-citation field; no sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Citations not good enough for WP:PROF#C1 and I think that as the second-highest rather than highest grade of honorary membership SFHEA is not enough for #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Thomas Keating#Contemplative Outreach. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Contemplative Outreach

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

Cannot find any independent, reliable sources on this religious organisation. It is already covered on the page of its founder, Thomas Keating, so merge does not look like an especially helpful option. Tacyarg (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Thomas_Keating#Contemplative_Outreach. Nothing sourced to merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Appears to be some significant coverage but no clear consensus and interest to discuss seems to have disappeared. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Ljubicic

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

Unless I'm missing something, this footballer has not played in any other leagues than lowly English leagues and the Icelandic league. Sources are passing mentions. Geschichte (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG per . Alvaldi (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Alvaldi Spiderone 20:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, and in contrast to the above votes I do not think there is enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. Walwal20 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There certainly seems to be some coverage of the player which could be considered substantial
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - meets GNG, in addition to the Icelandic coverage provided above, there is other coverage such as this andthis. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz 08:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Starfish Project

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

Sourced only to the organization's own website. I did some searching on my own. I found a few news articles which mention Starfish ( ) but these are all passing mentions and don't meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement of WP:NORG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2012-05 ✗ G6

The result was merge to Scarlet Witch. Eddie891 _Work 01:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternate versions of Scarlet Witch

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Rather than describe the topic summary style per WP:WAF, it was split out for no reason. TTN (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Scarlet Witch per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge referenced content to Scarlet Witch per WP:ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge There is no reason to have this as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge as normal for these articles. Topic does not have the coverage to meet WP:NOTPLOT or WP:GNG. Should be covered in context of the character and the notable comics they appear in. Jontesta (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jontesta: There is no "normal" for these articles, as some of them pass WP:LISTN and many of them do not. Ultimately, we treat them on a case-by-case basis. Dark knight 2149 00:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Scarlet Witch (WP:ATD). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Quickshot Joyball

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

Clearly a non-notable NES accessory. I did a WP:BEFORE check and found no significant coverage. The article has been unsourced since it was first created. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus is "keep" as the strongest delete argument is that WP:NACTOR is met, but WP:V is not. Subsequently, sources have been provided purporting to meet WP:V, which remain unchallenged for over a week. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Shellen

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

Yes, I admit the article passes WP:NACTOR since Shellen has played significant roles in Casual Sex? and Damned River. However, the article fails WP:BASIC. The only source available is IMDb, which is not reliable. Believe me, I've tried searching for sources besides IMDb to no avail. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Question. @Hitcher vs. Candyman: Is it your contention that all people must satisfy WP:BASIC in addition to the relevant WP:SNG, or is that restricted to actors? It is standard practice to keep articles where their subjects satisfy the applicable SNG, so I don't see how your nomination makes a case for deletion unless you are suggesting a different standard applies here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: I assumed all BLP articles, actor or not, needed to pass WP:BASIC in order to be eligible to be articles on Knowledge. If you think I made an error, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hitcher vs. Candyman, I think you could have a case for deletion under WP:V if it's true that the only "source" available is the unreliable IMDb. I haven't looked at the sources yet so I'm not sure if that's true, and leaving this open so that others can determine the existence or lack thereof of RS seems appropriate. But I don't think you can argue against inclusion on notability grounds, as it would defeat the purpose of SNGs to require compliance with GNG/BASIC in every case anyway. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and the GNG. There are multiple non-trivial sources out there, but they're behind paywalls. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Eddie891 _Work 01:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Xenomania production discography

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

Spam The Banner talk 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 20:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 20:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment – This comes across as potentially meeting WP:SPLIT, as a functional subpage of the main Xenomania page, which is a bit lengthy. Many discography pages exist on Knowledge, as demonstrated at Category:Discographies by artist nationality. Starting from this category, after surfing in the subcategories, I found the Featured list class article Chrisye discography, which is impressive. Ultimately, such articles should maybe not be deleted per a four-letter rationale at AfD stating the word "spam", and nothing else. More qualification regarding why this particular discography article should be deleted would be beneficial here. North America 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a discography of a band but from a production company. The Banner talk 23:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - The nominator does not justify good enough reasons for deletion. Exactly what is spammy about this page? Anything unsourced and/or inaccurate can just be removed. Ignoring that, this is a notable production team, which well pass GNG guidelines and has a long-line of work and credits to justify its existence. If this was merged into the team's page, it would likely make the page way too long. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep A valid split off article from the main one. The main article is notable, listing what they have done to make them so is standard, and if it won't all fit there, put it in a side article. Dream Focus 11:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep nomination is not detailed enough. killer bee  13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request speedy close as keep Okay, I got the message. Spamming is allowed. So soon we can get discographies from nearly everybody in the music industry. WEA, Ariola, Warner, down to the studio owners, the 3th assistant sound engineer and the coffee and the cleaning lady. Not my problem anymore. The Banner talk 19:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Banner - That is not what we are saying. Since you did not specify what in the article was spam, we have to guess ourselves. After looking in the article, I did not see anything that could be considered spam. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Raj Anand

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE as an exec at two non-notable companies. Citations are either dead or unhelpful. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return mentions of Mulk Raj Anand. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete - like very many up and coming business people, he got some coverage, but I'm not sure it's enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Wilcox

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

Looking through the sourcing, I can see no real proof of notability. The little that shows merely supports that she received several patents...some of which I would be very, very surprised if they were ever produced. The sourcing generally led back to online advertising, not scholarly work. Qwirkle (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep because it's useful to readers if we can debunk the myth published in sources like this. PamD 11:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think most “sources like ” came from? Here, of course. We could better handle that by adding it to the list of hoaxes on Knowledge. Nothing in the article as I found it was true, and it is still blaringly inaccurate, and always will be, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No: that "9 times" piece was cited in the Knowledge article when it first came to mainspace in April 2018 as a student course assignment (though oddly it's now "dated" March 2020). PamD 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hence the word “most”.

Unless the piece were written as a Snopesian debunking, it would almost certainly continue to generate more nonsense. Qwirkle (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Just getting patents does not make someone notable. If it did we would have a Knowledge article on my father David K. Lambert who has more patents than Wilcox, and whose inventions actually were used in the auto industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep There are many sources that list her as the inventor of the car heater such as . This is sufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. Also, the actual patents should establish that this is not a hoax. W 42 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

One day in 1882, Maria Beasely looked out at the sea and said, "People should, like, stop dying in huge transportation disasters." And then she invented life rafts. Beasely also invented a machine for making barrels, and it made her really fucking rich. That’s a source you think we should use?

Three sources that claim she invented automobile heaters, when the patent clearly shows her system, such as it is, was intended for railcars and streetcars....and not just any of them, but only for the decreasing minority with fixed axles. Qwirkle (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing is not ideal, but is sufficient for establishing her notability because it shows secondary sources providing significant coverage of her. What type of car that the patent is for is not relevant. What matters is that sources establish her invention as being the basis for modern car heaters and their coverage of her makes her notable. W 42 04:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

”Not ideal?” They’re complete dreck. Factually wrong, unsourced, and possibly wikicircular. The idea that this had anything to do with modern auto heaters is simply wrong, and any source that doesn’t understand that is suspect...at very best. It was a rather poor attempt to design something suitable heating for passenger rail coaches by placing a fire under the exit; as you can imagine it didn’t get too much traction. Other, working hydronic (rail) car heaters were designed and actually built before it. It was not an innovation. Qwirkle (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What is your source for her not being the inventor of the car heater? There are plenty of higher quality sources out there that discuss her: Mothers and Daughters of Invention by Autumn Stanley, a post by the Museum of American Speed recognizing her, and Women of Invention By Charlotte Montague. W 42 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Gentle reader, please note that the first source mentioned notes a different person’s invention of a car heater in 1870, more than twenty years before; ask what, if any, qualifications the second has; and please look at the other ~~potboilers~~deeply scholarly works of the third source’s author.

This is without even taking a few minutes to use a patent search engine, which might show a considerable number of “car heaters”.Qwirkle (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The first source is definitely the same Margaret Wilcox, correct name, time period, and location. Margaret Wilcox did not invent all car heaters, she invented the concept of using the engine's heat to heat passengers. This is well established by the sources. For the second source, the Museum of American Speed is an authority on the history of American automobiles and is therefore reliable. For the third source, the fact that you don't like the book doesn't take away the fact that it's a reliable published work. Do you have an actual source that she isn't the inventor of this car heater or is your argument entirely original research? The point is that she meets WP:GNG and therefore merits inclusion in wikipedia. W 42 18:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is to say the “sources” named are completely wrong. You can, in fact, read the patent and see that her system, such as it is, uses fuel, not engine heat, and that the innovation is a very, very, very particular way of running a hot water pump. No OR about it; just read the ur-source. Qwirkle (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Doing original analysis of primary sources to draw novel conclusions is the definition of original research. The fact that the sources do not agree with your conclusion does not stop them from having merit. If you can find a snopes debunking then we can weigh that against the weight of the existing sources. W 42 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually reading a source already in the article is not, by the least stretch of the imagination, “original research”, even in wiki’s peculiar use of the term. the idea that some of the internet fanboi and gee-whiz drivel cited above are strong sources that require serious debunking is, frankly, nonsense. Qwirkle (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree with the removal of sourced information from an article without a general consensus just because you have a different POV, even if it is correct. With that being said, the patent is clearly for passenger rail cars. Was it modified to work in automobiles? I don't know. Someone have any sources where it says it was modified and used? --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, of course it wasn’t used. It was not a particularly useful idea; more, in fact, a solution in search of a problem...it appears to use the design of a water heater already used for other purposes. As a matter ofsourcing, that depends on how far down the scale of internet glurge someone wants to go. Qwirkle (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure about this article yet; part of the problem is if the patents were successful and documented, they're likely to be done so in 100+ year old newspaper pieces which will be incredibly difficult to find. I note that the article was created as part of a student exercise supervised by Ian (Guettarda), so maybe he could give us some more information? Ritchie333 11:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that is as true for rail and automotive patents. There’s a pretty continuous stream of trade periodicals, widely archived, and often available online. Since the AIA began digitizing old commercial stuff, it has become a lot less true for construction, as well. Qwirkle (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I really don't have anything to useful to add. I don't know more about the sourcing they relied on, or how to contact a student after this long. I'm also not going to weigh in on one side or the other, since I think I could be perceived as having a possible COI here. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment The essential problem here is that we have an article about a (mythical) significant inventor, when the real subject is an internet hoax. That’s why the article is sourced largely to advertising. Admen (and adwomen, of course) love glurge. It’s catchy and it’s free.
The secondary problem for the article, but the big one for Wiki, is that it is a self-inflicted wound. Wiki Ed and other projects repeatedly create tendentious, poorly sourced articles like this, inexperienced writers and researchers checking each other’s work, where “peer review” might be better written as “the blind leading the blind.” Qwirkle (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete We should not be basing articles, particularly not biographies making claims for the subject, in adverts, patents and listicle blogs. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 01:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Elliot, California

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

Durham calls it a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. GNIS gives an alternate name of Elliot Siding. The California Journal of Mines and Geology says the Elliot Gravel Pit was located at Elliot siding near Pleasanton. Seems that Elliot was nothing more than a railroad siding. No indication it was a community or otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete The USGS historical maps collaborate the above findings. They show a progression from a railroad siding, called Elliot in 1941, lacking any associations with buildings, streets, or pits to a railroad siding, called Elliot Siding in 1953, associated with a dry (active ?) gravel pit. By 1961, the name Elliot has disappeared and the associated gravel pit is now flooded. Next to it, there is a loop of railroad tracks serving newer gravel pits. Both are labeled East Pleasanton. The only road shown is Stanley Bvld that connects Pleasanton and Livermore. Currently, the flooded gravel is known as Shadow Cliff Lake and is part of a regional recreational area. None of the maps contain any indication of there ever being either a populated place or community of any sort associated with Elliot. Paul H. (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
delete I can confirm all of the above, with the additional information that the gravel operation has moved slightly to the east and is still there, straddling the tracks. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Railroad siding at a gravel pit. GNG would need to be met in this case; it is not. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No post office. GNIS cites Alameda County Place Names, but Google is not making that quote available to us. Searching newspapers.com is tricky because Elliot is a name and there was an Oakland councilperson by that name. In newspapers.com, I searched for "Elliot Siding", "Elliot Southern Pacific in California", "Elliot gravel pit" and others and came up with nothing. Beware the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Elliot (historical) in San Joaquin county. As this locale has no legal recognition, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND #1. As this locale has almost no coverage, and the coverage it has (Alameda County Place Names) is trivial, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND #2. Cxbrx (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect to List of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1701 to 1800. Consensus is to delete; plausible search term. Eddie891 _Work 01:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1772

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Non-notable UN resolution with no SIGCOV. Content is copied and pasted from UN press release, violating Knowledge copyright policies. No other sources Rogermx (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I could not find any independent reliable coverage. W 42 19:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. I would accept this as a paper for a Model UN class, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete I'll note that one user has written similar articles for pretty much every single UNSC resolution, all just copy-pastes from the UN website. Idk if resolution texts are actually copyrighted, but this is inappropriate and all without significant coverage should be deleted. Reywas92 03:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. North America 02:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Intrigue FX

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

Fails WP:NORG. Definite claims to notability, but cannot find any SIGCOV. Only source is unreliable Rogermx (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn, no dissenting voices and consensus that sources in the article clearly indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Gurr

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

Article was dePRODded by Nfitz with the reason Gurr "Looks to meet GNG" and citing this article which is a blatant copy and paste of this thefa.com article. Gurr fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed to due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:GNG. I would say easily because there's an incredible of routine coverage of her (match reports and the like) as well, but women's football isn't covered as in depth, so had to dig to find the better articles (one of these is a match report but she's clearly covered.) Would be unfortunate if this is deleted, she's had a good and noted career. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - references above show enough coverage for WP:GNG, except ref 2, which is about a different Charlotte. It would be harsh to fail this article on the basis of WP:NFOOTY as she has made several appearances for many top clubs on the women's side, even if they were not playing in FPLs at that exact time. Spiderone 16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - seems to meet GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Theargus - Gurr scored twice, fortunately no one else did or they might have been interviewed, thesun isn't a RS, someone has to win the not notable awards of FA player of the round/goal of the week, the sportsvibe article is the same as the yahoo/fa ones and kentlive is a match report. A 16 year career and there's no in depth RS. Dougal18 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Argus article is clearly a feature story, the Kent Live is a match report that is written around her, there's more coverage of her with her long career as well. I haven't included the plethora of transfer announcements or routine coverage including BBC Match Reports that dates back throughout her entire career. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Argus is local coverage, Kent Live obviously leads on her because she scored four goals in the same way any match report in the world does when a player scores multiple times and the BBC site provides a whopping two hits. From 2009. All of it is routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw the nomination. I don't want to drag this out for another 6 days before it's closed as keep. Dougal18 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - clearly meEts GNG looking at SportingFlyer's sources. Nomination is misleading - I noted that there was a LOT of media coverage; unfortunately the example I chose was poor. Given how much media coverage there is, and that they have played for years on top professional teams in the UK, that are not quite fully-professional ... this nomination is an example of WP:BIAS and should be withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Article meets GNG and it also needs some improvements. WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, as passes GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 07:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Mindaugas Barauskas

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

Darts player does not meet criteria of WP:NSPORTS and I cannot find significant discussion of him in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn’t come anywhere near passing Notability. Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG as well Respublik (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep (although there is a consensus that the article still needs work). – bradv🍁 22:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

MGM/UA Premiere Network

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

When it comes down to it, this is a completely non-notable article about a long-gone syndicated film package that any average viewer just thought was another film an independent television station was showing (and was shown as such in consumer TV listings without the article title's name being called out). Sourcing is limited to 'film is on TV station tonight' "what's on TV tonight" listings, WP:YOUTUBE-violating clips of promos, trade ads no consumer really saw in everyday life mixed in with some 'tonight on (TV station)' ads in newspapers, random things on eBay and 'I remember this' forum posts, and otherwise cherry-picked WP:ITSNOTABLE reaches. I already removed a list of stations that aired the films per WP:ELNO. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bare in mind, that the MGM/UA Premiere Network, was technically, an ad hoc television network. The article for Fourth television network even list it as such. How is a list of stations that carried the NETWORK any different that a list of stations that carries ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC? I again, stress that it was technically, a network, so you can't just say that a list of stations that are affiliated with a network isn't necessary. And wasn't exactly a "block" of programming like say, TGIF on ABC, Must See TV on NBC, Saturday morning cartoons, or SNICK on Nickelodeon. And you can't just presume that any average viewer just thought of it as just another film on independent TV because that isn't the point of the article. Just because you see it like that, doesn't mean that that's the exact truth. Nor can you presume that no consumer really saw trade ads and by default, consider them as "unreliable". Plus, since you want to bring up how there are aren't any notable articles, well, for once thing, the New York Times wrote about it back in 1984. It was also written about in great detail in the books Movies at Home: How Hollywood Came to Television and Hollywood and Broadcasting: From Radio to Cable. You clearly view things from the perspective that since you never heard of it and it's "old", then it shouldn't be an article on Knowledge. BornonJune (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should sources that has "this film is on TV station" tonight not be merited? A newspaper is technically, considered a reliable source isn't it? It clearly acknowledges, the existence of the MGM/UA Premiere Network even if it doesn't go into detail. And like I addressed with the New York Times article, it isn't the *only* newspaper reference of the Premiere Network. BornonJune (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, if I used a newspaper article instead of a YouTube link as a source in regards to what TV stations carried the Premiere Network such as this in Minneapolis/St. Paul or this, which acknowledges WPIX in New York, KTLA in Los Angeles, and WGN in Chicago, would you still think that a list of stations on the Network, shouldn't be featured!? BornonJune (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If any average viewer just thought that the MGM/UA Premiere Network was another film an independent television station was showing, then why exactly was it promoted as airing under the MGM/UA Premiere Network instead of at random and without any branding or umbrella title to hold on to? Keep in mind that the whole point of the Premiere Network, was for MGM to have their films air on commercial, broadcast television for the very first time. Hence why it was called the Premiere Network. BornonJune (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Premiere Network, as explained in this Los Angeles Times article from 1989, also became the subject of controversy when the 1983 box office hit Wargames was aired as part of the package alongside decidedly "lesser" MGM titles. If that doesn't make it "notable" enough then I don't know what else is, to be honest with you. BornonJune (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: What's the point in deleting the list of stations that were affiliated with the MGM/UA Premiere Network if your intent is ultimately to have the entire article deleted? You can't have it both ways if you want to prove a point. I once again, stress that it was technically a TV network, not a programming block like Must See TV, SNICK, or TGIF. Adult Swim you could say, is a programming block for Cartoon Network, but is marketed as a separate network for ratings purposes, but that's another subject for another time. In the article concerning the Fourth television network, the section on the Premiere Network said that "it signed affiliation agreements with eight television stations in large markets. The service was expected to broadcast 24 movies in double-runs once a month for two years. MGM received 10½ minutes of advertising time within a two-hour movie telecast, while its stations would retain 11½ minutes. 100 television stations were signed as affiliates by October 1984, with the planned launch pushed back and set for November 10 of that year." BornonJune (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: I again must stress that seemingly (deliberately) overlook the fact that I provided reliable sources like newspaper articles such as the one from the New York Times. You simply focus on YouTube links and try to spin it by saying that Broadcasting magazine (which is as reliable as an industry source that you could find from that era), which is available to the free public (just Google it) doesn't fit as source. You continue to present your point of view from a decidedly subjective area with by saying to me previously, "This is information the layman in no way cares about." Who is this "layman" that you are referring too besides yourself? BornonJune (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

weak keep - but you will have to remove all the links to copyright-violating scans of ads and listings from various publications, and vastly improve the quality of the surviving citations, as well as purging content based on non-reliable sources. You also need to be able to tell us what happened to this obviously-failed experiment, and source that information as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. There are sources already documented that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. That those sources make it clear that this was not "really" a network as NBC, CBS, and ABC were at the time of its launch is not an issue of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Dan Russell (darts player)

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

Darts player does not meet criteria of WP:NSPORTS and I cannot find significant discussion of him in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for darts players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Even without bolded opinions, the source analysis is compelling. Considered putting into draft but the editor working on it (who I suspect has a COI) appears to be determined that we will retain our content and this came out of draft before it was ready earlier. Spartaz 07:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dromayor

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Mostly the work of two editors who appear to have a close connection with the subject, adding information that can't be found in any of the sources. The organization had a few drugstores, but their principal business was as a distribution company behind the scenes, and I don't believe that there is enough significant independent coverage to demonstrate notability. Most of the history of the company is sourced to this article in El Tiempo newspaper , but I became suspicious when I found two other articles on the company in the same newspaper from the same date and . Sure enough, they all contain the phrases "nuestro fundador" ("our founder"), "nuestros clientes" ("our clients"), "nuestro personal" ("our personnel")... so these are nothing more than a series of paid-for advertisements taken out by the company itself, and therefore not independent. The other El Tiempo source is identical in wording to one of the Portfolio sources, down to the title, and is obviously a press release from the company regarding a potential 2008 takeover which never happened (and the statement in the article that it was due to the economic crisis is not corroborated by any of the sources). The other Portfolio sources and the Dinero source only mention the company in passing regarding its sell-off in 2014. Most of the detailed information comes from the newsletter of the founder's local chamber of commerce, which apart from not being a reliable source, is simply doing its job in promoting local business and businessmen. In short, the only detail in the article comes from the company itself or the local chamber of commerce, and there is nothing more than passing mentions in independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be plenty of references, only two from El Tiempo, and it appears to have been a significant organisation. As it is closed there are no issues about this being promotional. Not surprising that when a newspaper runs an article about a company the company takes adverts in the paper. Nor is it surprising that the local chamber of commerce is a substantial source. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper didn't run an article about the company though - there are only the adverts that the company placed, and nothing else. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I dont believe the article in el tiempo was a paid for ad. It was spurced from a chilean newspaper who called and interviewed the founder of dromayor. The colombian papers got it from a chilean newspaper. Although the original source was taken down. Also the chamber of commerce has a newletter and awards recognition to significant businesess. It doesnt do that for anyone. The company infact doesnt exist anymore and is an important part of the history of the farmaceutical industry of the company. A few dates and details may be off but that can be fixed. There is more sources in print but as far as i can tell wikipedia only takes online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Country* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC) — Editelefant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Editelefant: I don't believe this is an interview with the founder - firstly, he wouldn't refer to himself as "our founder", which the article does, and even if it is an interview, that's also a problem because it's a primary source which means it's not independent. Secondly, there isn't a single quotation in the whole article, which would be very unusual for an interview. However, print sources are completely acceptable on Knowledge, providing that the sources are reliable and that you source them properly (title, name of source, date, and author and page number if possible). Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

Hi Richard. The interview was paraphrased into an article. It was more of a fact check call as i have investigated. I will add print sources. Best regards.

Also it is very important to note that the article does not say "our founder" you are probably reading a raw translation as the source is in spanish.

The article from portafolio clearly refetences the original source in the chilean newspaper. And does provide several quotations. They are just not using the "" symbols. Please read all the sources mpre carefully you will see that the scope of the company was large. Covering from its own 250 to 275 drugstores at any given time. Not few. To a wide network of independent farmacies, between 10,000 to 20,000 at any given time.

Please read carefully and you will se the stpry emerges that dromayor was a large referanceable conglomerate. Also operating licour distribution. Also having a stake in a soccet team. And also contributing to large construction projects.

Best regards

The sources in print are even more ample as i have researched but kept the article tp what was available online.

Given time and a consensus on this article will provide a basis to over some years to add more and more references and mapping the evolution of the farmaceutical company duting the second half of the 20th century. Its comparable to wikipedia editors suddenly saying for example that merck or pfizer or wallgreens are not referenceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Editelefant: "it is very important to note that the article does not say "our founder" – sorry, but that's not true... that's EXACTLY what it says in the second paragraph: "La vida de nuestro fundador...". So even if this was paraphrased from a Chilean newspaper, this wasn't written by journalists at El Tiempo, it was written by Dromayor and they paid to have it published in the newspaper.

My point is that almost all the information in the article has been provided by Dromayor itself – the El Tiempo article was written by Dromayor, the other article in El Tiempo and this article in Portfolio must be press releases issued by Dromayor because they are identical, and they also say that the company's founder gave the information to Estrategia, so it isn't independent. All the other sources apart from the newsletter of Pereira's chamber of commerce are literally no more than one-line passing mentions. I have read everything carefully as you said, and I am not disputing the figures about the number of outlets or annual sales... my point is that I have been looking at this article for a month, and I still can't see any detailed information that doesn't come from the company itself. I don't believe that your comparison with Pfizer or Walmart is valid, because there are literally hundreds or thousands of independent articles about them in newspapers and magazines all over the world, that have not been written by the company.

Saying "keep the article and let other editors add sources over time" is not a valid basis for keeping the article... the reliable independent sources need to be there in the first place, we don't keep articles on the basis that they can eventually become notable. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just added more sources. University thesis from two separate universities on dromayor. Also the article of the founder is in a draft to be moved to main space. Please feel free to edit facts or numbers that may be off. Or dates as well. So that a concensus can be reached. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC) You may be right about one article wich is similar to another one being a press release regarding the "our" this and "our" that concern but theres 12 other sources. The article in the chamber of commerce magazine is defenetely an independent substantial source. And i added others also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have to say that the article you have now created for the firm's founder, Héctor Villa Osorio, is essentially just a duplication of this article, and if this article survives, I think they should be merged – Mr Villa Osorio really has no notability outside of founding this company. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

two completely separate articles dear richard. Mr Villa has also notable work in the real estate and licour industries. also founding several organizations and being on the Board of directors of fenalco, the largest NGO for bussiness in colombia. Best Regards. and im sure you meant that when this articles discussion is closed then you can move on to other subjects you have more knowledge on. also more sources comming, right now the libraries are closed due to covid but already gatthering printed sources to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editelefant (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronising comment, but I'm not convinced at all about the separate notability, I'm afraid. I'll wait and see what you are able to add from print sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment It should be notable, but an examination of the references are very poor. There is two references of the eight should be in the Héctor Villa Osorio which I redirected as there was no references worth looking at, for a BLP. I think as a public pharma employing 4000 folk it should be notable, but unfortunately the references are very poor, and they WP:SIRS and WP:ORGCRIT. It should be draftified. I think there is sufficient coverage for the Héctor Villa Osorio article to be restored. scope_creep 10:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: as you probably noted scope_creep, the editor reverted your redirect... they also decided to unilaterally remove the AfD tags on the article and close the discussion themselves. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rick McCrank

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP McCrank is a significant skateboarder and absolutely deserves a page. He also had a show on Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/dpky4v/tonight-on-viceland-abandoned-native-land --Wil540 art (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Having a show on Vice is not a notability freebie if your source for it is Vice's own self-published web presence — to make that a notability claim, you need to show a reliable source not directly affiliated with Vice writing about it. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP McCrank has riden professionally for three of the prestigious companies in skateboarding for 20+ years, with full parts in several of the most influential skate videos of the 1990s/2000s. He has had multiple covers on Transworld and Thrasher. All of these make him one of the most recognisable and notable skateboarders today. Eklektikos (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete unless the sourcing can be improved. In terms of determining whether a person qualifies for an article or not, the test is not the things the article says, but the amount of reliable source coverage in real, unaffiliated media that can or cannot be shown to suppport the things it says. But the footnotes here are not reliable or notability-supporting sources — literally across the board, they're YouTube videos, directories and primary source profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies and organizations, with not even one source shown that represents professional third party journalism with him as its subject. No matter what notability claim a person can make, he has to have better sourcing to support it than this before he qualifies for a Knowledge article. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 07:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Matthias Media

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

No secondary sources Investigatory (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep - well known publisher in Australian Christian circles, closely linked with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and Phillip Jensen. The article could be better sourced but the publisher is well known. Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep - per Deus et lex--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep, notable publisher, influential internationally. I have added a couple of citations, one antagonistic which indicates notability. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, neither of these provides WP:SIGCOV. (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as reliable sources references have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Most of the reasons provided by the Keep !voters above fail to address the primary requirement in establishing notability for any organization according to WP:NCORP, which is the existence of references that meet the appropriate criteria. Being a "well known publisher" is meaningless and has nothing to do with our guidelines. Well known to who? Which references support this assertion? etc. Feyenatic above refers to two references that they added to the article. The first reference is a book named "Sydney Anglicans and the Threat to World Anglicanism: The Sydney Experiment" but this merely namechecks the company. The first reference says that the topic company shares a building complex with the AFES, all the rest are in relation to a paper or books that the topic company has publishe. There is no detailed information on the company in this reference, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference is from the website of the "Anglican Church League" which publishes, verbatim, an announcement from the topic company. This fails WP:ORGIND. There is not a single reference that even comes close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 18:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't agree. This meets GNG. Unless you're from Australia I suspect you won't be aware that this is a prominent publisher. Deus et lex (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  - Saying you "don't agree" with only a vague "meets GNG" rebuttal is pointless. If this publisher is as prominent as you say, please provide references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, can't get simpler than that. HighKing 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete the keep !voters should state what coverage they think makes it meet WP:NORG, which is necessary for publishers to be notable. Otherwise, it's just a WP:ILIKEIT argument which should be ignored by the closer. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - it has received independent coverage and is a widely known publisher of books in Australia. It has published the winner of the Australian Christian Book of the Year several times. If you're not Australian you will not know its notability. It's not an "I like it" argument. I should also note (looking through the other Australian publisher articles) that this has more sources than most others do (and don't quote "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" back to me). Deus et lex (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment - another source added from a theological journal. Note also that The Good Book Company is Matthias Media's UK arm (now a separate company). Deus et lex (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Insufficient coverage. Even the gbook refs are just mentions. Insufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Note to closing moderator and comment - I want to defend this article being on Knowledge (noting that I didn't write it and haven't contributed to it and don't have anything to do with it). This is not some advertising page, Matthias Media is a large Australian Christian publisher with a 30 year history of publishing religious books, not just in Australia but elsewhere too. I really get tired of having to defend articles where editors do not more than look through the first two pages of a Google search and if they don't find anything just vote delete. There are sources out there, but the history of the publishing industry in Australia is not something that is frequently looked at, so they are going to be hard to find, probably more in books and aren't going to be the sorts of things that will automatically appear on Google searches. I don't have time right now to add to this article but would like at least the chance to do that rather than for it to just get deleted. Some points to raise:
- It is strongly associated with Philip Jensen and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, even Muriel Porter who is no friend of those two has written about it as its "publishing arm" - so at the very least it should be merged and redirected to his article given that he founded it;
- Its UK spin-off, The Good Book Company has its own Knowledge page which will be ironic that the subsidiary survives but the head company doesn't;
- It has won or been a finalist in the Australian Christian Book of the Year Prize
- The theological article I added last week (after this AfD commenced and the first delete voters commented) does give it far more coverage than just routine coverage - showing that it does meet GNG from at least one source that is external and is not routine. I'm very confident you can find more;
- I've read through the list of Australian publishers and lots of them are terribly sourced. It feels just a little unfair for some user that doesn't even have a user page to target this one in particular.
This is a notable publisher in Australia. The article is worth keeping and I ask that a chance be given to keep it. Deus et lex (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - and as a requirement of considering alternatives to deletion the merge to Phillip Jensen should be considered before any consideration is given to full deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  - I would suggest Anglican Diocese of Sydney as a more appropriate merge-and-redirect target if there is not a consensus to keep the article.– Fayenatic London 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    - Given the publisher was founded by Jensen himself, and it is not owned or operated by the diocese (despite the criticism levelled against it in one of the sources and the fact there is a strong association) I think that is probably less of a good option. Deus et lex (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep per above. Not a no-name publisher, and doesn't fail GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is notable that to date, no references have been specifically identified as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. This is a requirement as per WP:NCORP. HighKing 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

in your opinion regarding the references, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct. An academic journal has been added that has an in-depth section on the publisher. See my comment on 7 October. Deus et lex (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete — Per rationale provided by both HighKing & Buidhe. I do not for one, think there’s sufficient coverage that is required as per WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Celestina007, I've explained above why this is notable. Those comments by those users were added before more sources were added. There are more, they are just not online. This is a notable publisher, and you haven't considered the requirement to consider alternatives to deletion. Please show some good faith and give the benefit of the doubt. The Eveson article has an entire section on the publisher and shows there are notable sources. Deus et lex (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment to closing moderator - please take into account my comments above. This is a notable publisher, and I have tried my best to add some sources. This article is being held to a higher standard than many others and that is not right. Deus et lex (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - also, as a further matter, the magazine published by the subject of this article also has its own article (The Briefing) which suggests yet another anomaly about why it is inappropriate to delete this article. Deus et lex (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Armond Rizzo

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

The notability criteria for porn actors is WP:GNG or WP:ENT as such subject fails to qualify as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Almost all all awards won by subject are all in house awards hence also doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A review of all the ref bombing & a before search doesn’t show subject being notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Celestina007, how does an "in-house" award differ from any other award? Benmite (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benmite, As you are the article creator of course I’d be more than willing to explain, on adult movie actors, awards such as “Best gay sex scene” “Best lesbian scene” & the lot are not notable awards. It’s akin to receiving a Domino Pizza staff of the year it doesn’t make the recipient automatically notable. Since PORNBIO has been deprecated, a biographical article on an adult movie actor is to be retained on Knowledge if they satisfy WP:ENT &/ WP:GNG of which a before search on the article's subject turns up nothing substantial. Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, can you point me to where on here that it was determined that awards for porn scenes were non-notable? The only other type of award I can think of for porn would be awards on an individual basis, which he has been nominated for and won several times. Benmite (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Obviously I'm going to say "keep", since I created the article, but I have my reasons. For starters, I'm not sure where your assessment of these sources being unreliable comes from, since none of them have been deprecated or even deemed generally unreliable in the list of perennial sources. Plenty of the sources included are long-standing LGBTQIA-focused publications, including Out and DNA, who identify Rizzo as a significant figure in the modern gay porn industry, as well as Instinct and PinkNews. There are definitely less reliable sources throughout, but those can be removed without the entire article being removed in the process (in other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.) Not only that, but he has been among the three most searched-for gay porn actors in the world on Pornhub for the past two years, and, as you pointed out, has been nominated for and won several awards for his work as a performer. Benmite (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read my comments before replying, I never mentioned source analysis anywhere, all I said is awards such as “best gay scene” & the lot are no longer considered reliable & for porn actors, they have to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:ENT of which the subject of your article fails to satisfy either. Look at WP:PORNBIO & you’d observe it redirects to WP:ENT because PORNBIO is no longer used. Please read WP:INDENT also. A before search only redirects me to his porn scenes if you have three reliable sources that proves subject of article is notable please bring them forward. It used to be WP:PORNBIO that validated such awards like ”best gay seen” but unfortunately it is no longer in use & porn actors are now subject to WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You said: "...such subject fails to qualify as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources". This inherently involves source analysis, since none of these sources outside of PinkNews have been discussed enough to end up on the perennial sources list, but PinkNews has been confirmed as reliable. I provided you with four separate sources which could reasonably be considered reliable with regards to LGBTQIA subjects, all of which have Knowledge articles of their own, used in the article, two of which specifically refer to Rizzo as being an especially important figure in modern gay pornography. He has also appeared in Paper and Logo News as well. You can find these in the article because they are cited in the article. You also didn't respond to any of the other points I made, nor did you explain how awards for pornography are akin to winning a "Domino's Pizza Staff of the Year Award". Those awards are clearly very different because these pornography awards are national or international awards, all of which have articles on Knowledge as they are the most prominent awards in the industry in which Rizzo works, meaning that WP:ANYBIO is met. There are no articles for the 17th Annual Podunk Domino's Pizza Awards because those apply to a single business in a single town, and they are not industry-wide. Benmite (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Celestina007 Benmite (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Benmite, I think Nick Moyes said it best, go to the Teahouse & read the section titled AVN. Perhaps that would enlighten you better. Furthermore, don’t just say they appeared on Pink Paper magazine or Logo News, you need to actually provide the sources so we could see if they are reliable sources with editorial oversight & reputation for fact checking & as I have said almost innumerable times now, awards such as “best gay scene” aren’t notable anymore & porn movie actors are now tested under either WP:ENT or WP:GNG of which a before search like I have said over & again only leads me to porn websites. Do not forget to read WP:COI as well. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, can you please provide a link to the Teahouse discussion on AVN? Furthermore, like I already said, the sources appear within the article itself. You can find them if you press "CTRL+F" and type in the name of the publication. If you really need me to type them all out, I can, but they appear right within the article. Benmite (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, another thing: The reason that you are only finding porn videos when you search up a porn star is because that is usually what Google shows you when you look up any porn star, regardless of their notoriety. Take Asa Akira for example. She is certainly notable on her own as a porn star, but when you look her up almost every result is of her porn. The same happens when you look up other porn stars, such as Abella Danger (see here) or Adriana Chechik (see here). That's just how Google works. Benmite (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources in the aforementioned articles you just provided & take a look at the type of sources used in this article, for example you tried to say this Logo News was a reliable source. Did you actually read WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, again, you are not actually providing an explanation for any of this. What exactly makes Logo News an unreliable source? I did read WP:RS. The article from Logo News is not self-published, it's not user-generated, and it's not sponsored. I really need you to start being more specific. Benmite (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benmite, Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON the process, it’s an unreliable source because they do not possess a reputation for fact checking. Again, if you read WP:RS you won’t be asking me that question. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Logo News is generally reliable and certainly a valid source for non-exceptional claims. NewNowNext is the company’s news division. Glee 09:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I've not yet found the time to wade through all 29 citations here. @Benmite: the thread Celestina007 referred to that I made at the Teahouse can be found here. You simply cannot defend notability by saying that Google smothers good sources with lots of links to porn video pages!" Go find the sources if you want to assert someone's notability, and don't hide behind your feeling that they're there, but hidden. Try Google News, or Google Books, for example, where you might find they have (or haven't) been written about in detail and in depth by independent reliable sources. Using insider websites as WP:RS is akin to using press releases and business magazine articles used to promote a manufacturer of earthenware drainage pipes. There may be lots of them out there, but these self-promoting, pat-on-the-back news stories and pseudo-award pages like " sluice and drainpipe manufacturer of the year" are simply not sufficient to show that one particular maker of drainpipes is 'Notable'. Same applies here. So, to save everyone the trouble of wading through your multitude of insider citations, please just link to just the three topmost ones which you feel clearly demonstrates this person's notability per WP:ENT or WP:NBIO. And avoid the WP:BLUDGEON, please. (Note that I have removed the CSD template as it was quite inappropriately placed by the same editor who previously AFD-ed this page). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the thread? I’m not hiding behind anything. I listed each of the sources which I thought qualified as reliable earlier, all of which appear in the article and are independent. You don't have to sift through all 29 to find them, you can just use CTRL+F, but since no one seems to want to do that, here: Out (article; "One of the night’s big winners was Armond Rizzo, a massively popular gay porn actor..."), DNA (article), PinkNews (article; a confirmed RS), Paper (article; not an LGBT-focused or porn-focused publication, therefore not an "insider" source), Instinct (article), and Logo News (article). Celestina007 claimed that a search of Armond Rizzo's name only yielded porn videos, which was used as a rationale for deletion, to which I replied that that is the case with virtually any porn star, which is true. A before search for most porn stars on the main Google page, regardless of notoriety, would yield similar results, as I illustrated earlier. Also, if the issue is that these publications are not scholarly or peer-reviewed, then I will remind you that, as per WP:RSE, articles on popular culture, while still requiring reliable sourcing, "due to the subject matter...may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on." I also see nothing about so-called "insider" sources on WP:RS. It's like saying that Pitchfork shouldn't be considered a reliable source for music articles because all of their articles are focused on music. Just because most of the articles used are from publications with a focus on queer culture doesn't mean that they are in any way less reliable, especially considering PinkNews is a confirmed RS. Benmite (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Nick Moyes Benmite (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Lots of chaff here, but this performer may scrape by WP:BASIC with the Out and Pink News coverage. Porn awards count for little without independent RS acknowledgemnt, but he seems to get it. Holding off on a !vote for a closer look. There is lots of ref bombing to sort through. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep undoubtedly meets GNG/BASIC, has numerous mentions in mainstream LGBTQ publications which is somewhat rare for porn stars, and one of few paths to notability besides legal problems.@Benmite:, you need to trust the process a bit more, use the article’s talk page (lightly) to suggest edits/corrections/sources. The awards BTW, are not meaningless as they represent significant recognition in the industry, like almost every industry award, hello Emmy’s and Oscars.Celestina007, he has a point about finding sources, google news, for instance, filters not only anything about gay porn but also mainstream LGBTQ news sites. So finding sources for gay porn takes detective work. Glee 09:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, lacks indepth coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources. We have decided to stop using industry specific publications that exist to drive hits not to provide actual reliable coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- He is in reliable secondary sources, and mainstream publications do write about the gay porn awards:
  - Parente, Luca (2020-01-29). "L'attore porno Armond Rizzo rivela: «I bottom sono pagati meno dei top»". NEG Zone (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Gay Porn Star Demands Bottoms Get Paid Equal to Tops". PAPER. 2020-01-31. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - Newsdesk. "Here's who came TOP in the European Gay Porn Awards". www.thegayuk.com. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Sind Bottoms weniger wert? - Porno-Star Armond Rizzo deckt auf". www.schwulissimo.de (in German). Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - dice, Juan (2017-07-04). "Los actores porno gay más buscados en lo que llevamos de 2017". Revista Zero (in Spanish). Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Here's Who Won the 'Oscars of Gay Porn' for 2020". www.out.com. 2020-01-21. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Voici le palmarès des "Golden Globes" du porno gay". TÊTU (in French). 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Voici le palmarès des "Golden Globes" du porno gay". TÊTU (in French). 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
  - "Find Out Which of Your Favorite Gay Adult Performers Grabbed a 2019 Grabby Award: VIDEO". Towleroad Gay News. 2019-05-28. Retrieved 2020-10-12.
- There’s more but these should help satisfy GNG, and note in at least four languages from as many countries. Glee 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Gleeanon409's lists of award coverage in RS and Benmite's list of coverage regarding the subject's thoughts on an industry issue seems more than enough to satisfy GNG. Benmite reports one description of Rizzo, from the magazine Out, above. The magazine Paper additionally describes him: as an established, award-winning performer. Seems enough RS deem his awards noteworthy, and enough deem him, specifically, noteworthy. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would benefit from.source analysis of those sources brought in late to the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

weak keep. Per the sources provided by other user to keep, my suggestion is keep with maintenance tags. (F5pillar---/ ) 15:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep: There's a point where nitpicking over every single source just encourages people to add more low-quality sources. This is counter-productive. There are plenty. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as the above sources establish notability. W 42 19:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep The coverage in Out and PinkNews (since the latter made it onto WP:RSP) are enough. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, per the research done by Gleeanon409, above. Also, per "Rizzo — as an established, award-winning performer". Right cite (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Florian Hempel

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

No indication of notability for this darts player. He has not won any major tournaments and I cannot find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Bengali literature. Spartaz 07:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

History of Bengali literature

This page should be deleted as it is the same as, if not a worse downgraded version of, the Bengali literature page. In Knowledge, no other language has two pages on their literature. Merging it (as suggested on the Talk page a few months ago) will be of no use as all the cited and well-sourced information is already found in the Bengali literature page. The extra information on this page is completely unsourced and the page is dwindling, with far too many categories and poor presentation. During the Talk page discussion page, @Ardenter: also agreed with the deletion of this page. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of literature-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of history-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 10. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep/merge We have lots of pages about the history of literature including an extensive category organised by country: category:History of literature by country. There seems to be no particular reason to discriminate against the Bengali language's literature. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson:, I'm literally a dedicated contributor to articles relating to Bengali history. What you mentioned is a list of categories. There are no pages which have two pages for literature; the history is mentioned on the same page. For example; English literature (exists) and History of English literature (doesn't exist because history is already mentioned on the previous page!!). Do a search on Knowledge and you will apart from Bengali, there is no other article which has a title like this "History of literature", history is mentioned on the literature page. Please read my comments again and view the two pages I mentioned in my original comment. UserNumber (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep/Merge -- There is scope for two articles, one on historic and the other on modern literature, so that one is a sub-article of the other. The problem is that the literature article is seeking to cover some of the same ground as the history one, which will not do. I would suggest purging "literature" of its medieval and earlier parts, and "history" of its modern parts. In that way we can get two focused articles, instead of the current unfocused ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Bengali literature. I think merging these articles can create an overview article on Bengali literature. After the merge we can consider WP:SPINOFF and create articles on specific time periods if there is too much information in one section or there is WP:UNDUE weight. The first step is to merge these articles and then access the information we have. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge as suggested, seems to be the most sensible way out. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect Not really sure if any sourced material is there in History of Bengali literature to be useful to Bengali literature. However this way the history remains intact and any editor can access it if some useful material is there. Roller26 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. I would recommend a discussion to see if a rename to Death of Felicia Tang is warranted. Ritchie333 11:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Felicia Tang

AfDs for this article:

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

Classic ONEEVENT. No notability outside her death and with no conviction there is no enduring notability and therefore fails NOT Spartaz 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep This AfD feels like a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT regardless of previous voting consensus! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This does not articulate a reason for keeping the article, and thus will be discarded. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have no right to strike my vote. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your !vote doesn't have to be struck. Closing admins are free to discount votes not based in policy or evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The most recent AfD debate (2016) closed as no consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - per BLP1E. Generally there's a possibility of converting biographies like this to an article on the event, but there doesn't appear to be notability for the event either. 174.254.193.255 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. She is very attractive, as noted in the first AfD, but the only reliable sources are just about her death. See WP:BLP1E GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Only coverage is as part of a routine (for Vegas anyways) murder, nothing else significant or special. One event, no lasting interest or importance. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep and convert to event - routine murders do not have enduring coverage 5 years later on national television. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, but rename – article is sourced well, if a little messily. However, article should be renamed as "Death of Felicia Tang" and any relevant biographical information about Tang should be used in a subsection of the article. Per Govvy's rationale above, sounds like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Please ping me if you choose to reply). Sean Stephens (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are some sources on the topic in question for anyone who believes she lacks notability:
- Stevenson, Chuck; Fisher, Greg; Prior, Sarah (2 August 2014). "The mysterious death of Felicia Tang". CBS News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- Hime, Thomas (20 October 2009). "Coroner: Adult actress from Monrovia died of asphyxiation". Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- Fisher, Greg (5 August 2014). "48 Hours: When a case is a 'slam dunk' -- and when it's not". CBS News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- Smith, Ryan (30 September 2009). "Felicia Tang Lee Murder: Reality show preacher pleads not guilty". CBS News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- Pesce, Anthony (11 September 2009). "Felicia Lee, 31 – Homicide Report". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 12 October 2020.

-- Sean Stephens (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A few more:

- William-Ross, Lindsay (14 November 2011). "Did a preacher and "Sexiest Bachelor in America" contestant murder his porn star girlfriend?". LAist. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- William-Ross, Lindsay (29 September 2009). "Porn star tortured and killed". ABC News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.
- Smith, Ryan (29 October 2009). "Felicia Tang Lee Murder: Reality show preacher Brian Lee Randone will stand trial". CBS News. Retrieved 12 October 2020.

-- Sean Stephens (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Many would say this only cements the argument of WP:ONEEVENT. There's literally nothing to say about the subject other than "she was murdered", which unfortunately in America happens every day. Zaathras (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - @Johnpacklambert:, how is this contribution at all helpful to this debate? You don't explain why or give any reasoning. Deus et lex (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with the nominator's assessment. This is a biography of one event, a sensational death. Crime stories typically get two bursts of coverage, first when the crime happens and the second during a trial. RS interest for this case followed this pattern and faded away after the 2014 trial verdict. The actress as no other claim of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Commment - I don't think that is correct, if you read the last AfD the trial verdict was in 2011 but the case was still receiving coverage at least 3 years later. Deus et lex (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, per research by Sean Stephens, above, but to consider editorial rename through discussion as well, to Death of Felicia Tang, also per Sean Stephens good suggestion, above. Right cite (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, but rename the page to Death of Felicia Tang like what Right cite suggested. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) , 2:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC).
Keep but rename per Right cite - the death and trial were notable events and the independent sources in the article suggest there was ongoing coverage for several years afterwards. The previous AfDs have pointed out some helpful sources about the ongoing notability. Deus et lex (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, sufficient coverage. No opinion on the title which is not an issue for AFD. MB 04:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. In addition, the Allmovie review is just an unsubstantiated star-rating. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

White Phantom

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2016-07 ✗ G6

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Outside of the usual movie databases and sales pages, there does not seem to be any actual coverage of this movie. Even Rotten Tomatoes is showing zero critic reviews. As the director, writer, and production company are all non-notable themselves, there is no place to redirect this to. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New Horizons Global Partners

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Native advertising. scope_creep 20:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Claimed events are routine and do not pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep INC, Reuters, and FR sources are all reliable and passes WP:GNG seems well notable within the related industry. JK.Kite (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a single reference is valid. The reuters ref is an business announcement, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 20:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - just another unremarkable provider of "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 19:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:ORGIND. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devokewater (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 07:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bangla Tigers

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

Non notable team of a minor tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Other teams in the tournament doesn't have articles. Human (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:CRIN notability guidelines and the tournament itself is of dubious notability; the less T10 stuff we have on here the better. StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @AssociateAffiliate: Don't jump to conclusions about the tournament. It is notable enough to have multiple seasons articles without having deleted once. And it has approved by ICC. Human (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment It isn't official cricket, just a hit and giggle. Pay people enough and they will come and play it, doesn't make it a notable form of cricket or the tournament notable. It's played in a non-full member and doesn't have any official status. Lugnuts list of official cricket matches is fair and where our focus should lie. StickyWicket (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @AssociateAffiliate: Still it shouldn't be deleted just like that. In that case all seasons should be deleted. It already produced three season artticles without much objection. Also the Hundred or whatever that thing is called is having an article. Lets just focus on the matter in hand and not divert away from this AfD. Human (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Don't even get me started on The Hundred, I'd like to see that speedily deleted from all existence!!!! It's no reflection on you by the way, I think you're an excellent editor who has really helped the cricket project this year :) StickyWicket (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the conversation I would prefer to not close as SOFTDELETE (which would be current consensus). Relisting to see if firmer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep - seems to be a not unreasonable amount of coverage, so maybe just about passes WP:GNG, etc. _wjemather 19:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of 2017 box office number-one films in Taiwan

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

The references(PDFs) which the article using are from Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute(TFAI), TFAI is the only source publishing about Taiwan weekly box office. But the problem are the references(PDFs) only display the films released over 7 days, it caused the references(PDFs) can not contain the films' first weekly box office, and the references(PDFs) did not rank which film was number-one, the article is original research. Please see the discussion in zh-wiki. (zh:Knowledge:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2020/08/24#台灣單週票房冠軍, zh:Knowledge:互助客栈/条目探讨/存档/2020年8月#「2017年台灣單週票房冠軍、2018年台灣單週票房冠軍、2019年台灣單週票房冠軍、2020年台灣單週票房冠軍」四個條目需要被刪除) --寒吉 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to List of highest-grossing films in Taiwan - as they are fairly similar. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody please review this AfD? I doubt anybody else is gonna take part in it. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I can call me editor-in-chief about Taiwan box office in zh-wiki.Be redirected or deleted would be great option. The refs can't use like that way, they went too far.--寒吉 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Venkitesh V.P.

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

The subject has played a significant role only in one TV show, Nayika Nayakan. He was also nominated for "best comedian of the show" (a non notable award presented by the TV show itself) hence he fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Knowledge says WP:ENT "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Also, the article has been repeatedly created/recreated under different titles such as Venkitesh VP and Venkitesh V.P TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable actor. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris Violette

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

BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not get an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1 just because the article lists roles -- that criterion calls for multiple significant roles, not just any role, and it still has to be verified by real reliable sources about him and his performances to demonstrate that the criterion is actually passed. But there's only one (which is not "multiple") role here that's potentially significant enough to count -- other than Power Rangers SPD, everything else listed here is supporting or bit parts, often as characters who don't even have names, rather than major starring roles, and none of it is sourced at all. People are not automatically notable just because they have IMDb pages, if they haven't been written about in real media. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete It is high time we removed all BLPs that lack any reliable sources. This one has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There's some coverage. Right now it's a mess. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bulger Hall

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

The article does not meet GNG, no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth, or NBUILD "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is no sourced content that is suitable for a merge and title is an unlikely search term for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NBUILD. W 42 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - about as run of the mill as it gets - the 11th tallest skyscraper in a medium-sized city and neither especially tall nor old . Bearian (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 01:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pamela Sossi

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL - ran in two primary elections and did not win either. A WP:BEFORE search does not appear to show enough for WP:GNG either. Also WP:COI concerns. Melcous (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: losing elections or winning lawyer awards isn’t notable. Although she seems nice and I hope she wins soon! Juju (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete neither a notable candidate nor a notable attorney. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. People do not get Knowledge articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries, but this article does not document or reliably source that she has any strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessfully contesting primaries. If she does win election to a notable office in the future, then obviously that will be the time to start a new article about her — but nothing stated here already gets her in the door today. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete in the case of state legislature, one needs to be elected to the office to become notable. Unelected candidates for state legislature are never notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL --Devokewater (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable candidate, no significant political career. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nnamdi Anyaehie

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

Fails WP:NPOL - chief of staff to a state leader, not a politician himself. Melcous (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Chief of staff at the state government level is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees him an article, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: the sources are all either very short blurbs or glancing namechecks of his existence in lists, not coverage that is substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete — Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Shoutout to editors who vigiled over the discussion with its numerous blankings. Geschichte (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Akash D

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

Non notable singer with no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources provided in the article are about his first song being adapted into a Bollywood movie with no wide coverage. A Google search of him does not show in-depth significant coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

He is notable singer with evidence of satisfying. There are number newspapers sources provided in the article are about his first song being adapted into a Bollywood movie with wide coverage. A Google search of him show in-depth significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvinGri (talk • contribs)
He is working in music industry for last 5 years in Bollywood Industry.
He also composed and sang "Nain" song in 2020 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit verma91 (talk • contribs)

References

"Akash D, shifted to Mumbai to fulfill his dream back in 2015. This was just after completing a degree in multimedia". The Tribune. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
"Akash D : Nain (Official Video)". A-Beat Records. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
"'Sip Sip' is a single that Akash D and Guru Bhullar released late last year on T Series' Punjabi channel, the song is reused as is for Arjun Patiala". The Hindu. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
""Arjun Patiala' starring Diljit Dosanjh and Kriti Sanon. 'Sip Sip' is sung by Guru Bhullar and music of the song is given by Akash D. Lyrics of 'Arjun Patiala' song 'Sip Sip' are written by Akash D". The Times Of India. Retrieved 2019-07-17.

Not Agree For Deletion - This article should not be deleted . A Google search of him does show in-depth significant coverage.

I think wikipedia is a good source to find and search real information about this singer . So this page should be available and keep maintain in wikipedia for more information about his future projects and things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.219.213 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only contributions to the discussion thus far appear to be sockpuppetry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. There's no evidence of notability as set out at WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Per the too soon rule. Yes he had a song placed in a movie but all of the reliable and significant sources on that bit of good fortune are about the movie itself. Sources that are really about the musician are mostly reprinted press releases about that song, plus a few softball introductory interviews. For now, he is in the midst of a heavy promotional push by his management, but Knowledge should not be part of that effort. He might be eligible for an article here in the future, if he earns some more achievements that in turn attract dedicated coverage. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Removed by IP, adding back. See diff. --Minorax (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above (excluding the sock comments) Spiderone 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 01:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Shakey Sue

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

This page is about the lead singer in a band, The Hellfreaks, which doesn't have its own Knowledge page and doesn't appear notable. Similarly, the subject of the article doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, although I'd disagree about notability of The Hellfreaks. It has articles in dewiki, frwiki, and mgwiki. If a psychobilly fan wants to create The Hellfreaks, delete-and-redirect sounds like a plausible option. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per above. As a Hungarian, I have never heard of her (I only know the name of the Hellfreaks, I have never heard any song by them so that's why I am not familiar with her). Anyways, I second AleatoryPonderings' opinion. We need an English language article on the band, then Shakey Sue can stay as a redirect. But she is not notable on her own. And yes, her band has entries on other Wikipedias, including on huwiki. Btw, AleatoryPonderings, instead of "mgwiki", don't you mean "huwiki"?GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with everyone above. She has no independent notability or reliable media coverage of her own. There could conceivably be an article on the Hellfreaks if anyone wants to create it, and Ms. Shakey can be listed as one of their members. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 01:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Midway Business Park

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Coverage is routine, run of the mill local news, an ordinary NIMBY dispute, nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. NBUILD states "... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The article contains no claim of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Climacs

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:PRG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable article. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 16:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein 12:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

International Centre for Technological Innovations (ICTI)

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

Seems to be a covert advertisement for a non-notable organisation. Even if notability could be established, this should be deleted per WP:NOBOGOF. — Blablubbs 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note page was moved back to draftspace by the creator immediately after I nominated it for deletion; before that, they had unilaterally moved it out of draftspace.— Blablubbs 11:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Andover and District Football League

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

WP:GNG concern. Does not appear to have ever been notable. The only source I could find was in a local paper and is a short article about how the league is close to closing down due to lack of teams. It then has a number and email for you to contact if you want to join the league yourself. Spiderone 10:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a long-running Saturday league, the article has been in a poor state since 2006 so I would have recommended a merge to the Hampshire league but there has to be a good place to redirect this information somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Although the merge almost definitely has happened as per looking at the league table, ideally it would be good to have a reliable source discussing the merger; I can't seem to find anything discussing this even in local news sources. Spiderone 11:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Sub-county league. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. BD2412 T 05:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Divi's Laboratories

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

Promotional article about a company mostly sourced to primary sources and does not seem to meet WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Sources cited are self-published websites, listings in company's directory, routine announcements with no wide coverage. Although It is a public listed company, I could not locate in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources. It was previously CSDed and deleted for advertising issues Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep: I don't see how this article is promotional at all. There are plenty of independent secondary sources that cover this company in detail:

Of the 15 references in the article's reflist, I count 11 that are independent, secondary sources so you'll have to expound on your claim that most sources are primary.

AfD's should be a last resort, I see this as a hasty attempt to delete an article that clearly needs some work but is undeniably notable. The page was last deleted in 2008, 12 years ago. Since then the company has grown to become one of the largest API manufacturers in India and has also been included in the NIFTY 50 index. Therefore, I vehemently oppose. Prolix 💬 13:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix: It was not a knee jerk decision at all. In fact i checked all sources carefully and did a BEFORE search too before opening this AfD and as stated above the article is filled with primary sources and the secondary sources that are there are either announcements or speak about company's growth in terms of its deal with companies, revenues, funding...etc. I was aware of the sources you pointed to, they are also more or less the same. Some of them seem to me PR pieces and do not amount to establishing notability. @HighKing:, @Premeditated Chaos:, @SamHolt6: are a dab hand at identifying sources.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao, I am aware of the problems with the article, there are various maintenance templates dedicated to the issues you point out which could have been used instead of starting an AfD. You really need to elaborate on how the sources I linked to are 'more or less the same' and 'PR pieces'. A few of the sources are analysis articles from reputable sources while others are dedicated articles about the company's expansion projects, all of which clearly pass WP:SIRS. You're seriously claiming that articles such as this, this, and this, which are entirely about this company, published by sources such as The Economic Times, The Hindu and CNBC, which are considered secondary, independent, and reliable sources do not qualify as significant enough coverage? Prolix 💬 10:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. It is a component of the NIFTY 50. Major company for which WP:LISTED (although it is not a policy or guideline) is relevant. Like Prolix, I don't see the WP:PROMO issues here; the promotional content, such as there is, can be fixed. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as the issues can be fixed. The company is notable now and also the part of NIFTY 50 as pointed by AleatoryPonderings. Also, the article was CSD long back in 2008, and more than a decade has passes and it has gained notability during the course of time. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Keep: Being part of NIFTY 50 itself is more than enough to justify notability. With a market cap of around 12 billion USD, its among the top 100 listed companies of India and currently the second biggest Indian pharma company. (India is the largest producer of generic medicine in the world) Roller26 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Notable within its sector as one of the top companies in its field (API manufacturing). Not overly promotional and mentions basic facts, and meets WP:SIGCOV. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Donna Pinciotti. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Donna Pinciotti

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

No sources. Prod has already declined. Techie3 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to That '70s Show; plausible-ish search term. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge I feel like some of the info could be merged into List of That '70s Show characters or something similar. However, with the lack of sources and redudnant and lengthly character biography makes it seem like its a Wikia/Fandom article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Irate Communist (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Donna Pinciotti. There is no information worth merging, since it is all in-universe information and the target gives a fine enough character description. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete and redirect due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Already appropriately covered elsewhere. Jontesta (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Donna Pinciotti. I didn't find WP:SIGCOV. I don't think it's necessary to move the one cited statement across to the character list article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

List of creatures in Primeval

AfDs for this article:

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

This is mostly unsourced and an obvious example of Knowledge:Fancruft. It has been nominated for deletion three times before and I cannot understand why it still remains (seems to be fans of the series wishing to keep it here). There are no reliable, third-party sources that establish this as a notable subject and the content is a much better fit for fan websites such as the Primeval wiki. Adequately sourcing the content in this article with reliable sources is going to be impossible and the content that would otherwise be good (comparisons between the creatures in the programme and the real-world animals they were based on) is more or less entirely original research. In past AfD:s those wishing to keep it have stated that the content can't be merged back into the article for Primeval since it's too large, but I don't see the need for listing every single animal in the series in the first place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep according to what you just mentioned: is lacking in this article; yes I believed you entirely but this article is far² from even call not notable, I believed this don't look like a (Knowledge list article) bcuz it is different from the title as per 'list of creatures in primeval'. Change the article title would be better. (F5pillar---/ ) 15:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Retitling the article would not solve the significant problem of this clearly being fancruft, the lack of notability, the lack (and impossibility) of adequate sourcing and the rampant original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - It’s astonishing that this still exists. It does not in any way establish notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. There is nothing that can be called significant covering the topic as a whole. It lacks discussion from a real world perspective. It’s just a massive WP:NOTPLOT failure. TTN (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. There is literally no reason to keep this around. Nothing notable can be said about the depictions of animals in this series. It is a list, with a lot of unnecessary fancruft in between. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete I am astonished as well at the fact that this was kept at the previous three AfDs. Pure fancruft and listcruft. Non-notable topic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Every previous nomination has resulted in Keep so this renomination seems to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, especially as it seems to be mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Too large" is not a reason to delete – it's a reason to WP:SPLIT, which is what has been done here. See also WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you got WP:IDONTLIKEIT from this; I pointed out several flaws with the article that violate Knowledge policies; it being overly detailed fancruft, it severely lacking reliable sources (and the impossibility of adding such sources in this case), and the lack of notability. The only flaw you defend here, its size, is something I did not even bring up as one of its flaws. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete If a list of creatures of Jurassic Park, one of the biggest box office franchises of all time, was found not to be notable, then a list about a much less popular TV series surely isn't. Due to Primeval's "monster of the week" format theres significant overlap with List of Primeval episodes. Unlike for Jurassic Park, theres not really any significant commentary in news articles from the time on how accurate the depictions are, which means that there is little to work with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Jurassic Park is a small number of movies. Primeval consisted of two TV series and your rationale is really WP:OTHERSTUFF. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet, Primeval is significantly less known than Jurassic Park. There is significantly more commentary and sources available for creating a "list of creatures" for Jurassic Park than there is for Primeval, and yet that was deemed non-notable, a perfectly acceptable line of reasoning. It is also worth pointing out that one of your own rationales for wanting to keep the list was WP:OTHERSTUFF (!); "This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that one of your own rationales for wanting to keep the list was WP:OTHERSTUFF - No, that's incorrect. My point was is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV. You forgot to quote that part of the sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really an important point of contention but "This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV" is a two-part argument (there is an "and" in the middle); "this is no different to..." is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I've already challenged the "is entirely appropriate..." part below. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

is a two-part argument - The irony here is that you are accepting that it is one argument. That it has two parts is irrelevant. If you are going to rebut an argument, rebut the whole argument. Don't ignore the part that you can't.

I've already challenged the "is entirely appropriate..." part below - Yes you have but "List of characters" articles are most definitely supported. That's why we have thousands of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out, I did rebut the whole argument but in two separate places. Let's not get caught in this non-issue and stick to the matter at hand. "List of characters" articles might be supported yes (if they are notable in the first place, with coverage in reliable sources), but this is not a list of characters and as such is not supported by the MOS. You can challenge me on this below, the discussion is becoming a bit all over the place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is really no difference between a "list of characters" and a "List of creatures" article so yes, this is covered by the MOS. See List of Madagascar (franchise) characters for an article that deals with creatures. A lot of cartoon articles have similar lists. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is? There already is a List of Primeval characters (though it suffers from many of the same problems as this list) so clearly there is a difference. The characters in Madagascar are characters; you'll notice that different lions have different entries for instance. The MOS does not cover "list of creatures"-type articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lord give me strength. Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs. I did not say that they are the same. I don't know any simpler way to state that. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lord give me strength"??? The only lists that MOS:TV brings up are Lists of characters and lists of episodes, it says nothing about other lists. The section about cast and character lists, which you seem to be referring to even though it does not necessarily apply to this entirely different type of list, specifically points out that editors should remember to follow the notability guidelines and that these kind of lists should avoid serving as repositories of excessive in-universe information, both points that the Primeval creature list breaks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "Lord give me strength"! The only lists that MOS:TV brings up - Please read what I wrote, it's very clear: Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs. I didn't mention MOS:TV in that. You're making assumptions, and bad ones at that. Where something is not specifically addressed in the MOS (not just MOS:TV, I'm talking about the whole MOS!) we look to other parts of the MOS for guidance. That means, in the case of TV programs, we look at how MOS:TV treats other similar type lists. If we can't find a section of MOS:TV that covers what we are looking at, we'll go elsewhere in the MOS. For example, some of the guidance we follow comes from MOS:FILM. This is done for consistency, which is why we treat lists of creatures as we would treat lists of characters. It's common sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing "lord give me strength" and that I'm making "bad assumptions" is a bit much, don't you think? The problem here is that "Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs" is your own opinion; you write yourself that the MOS says nothing about this. You can't refer to the MOS for keeping a list of creatures and at the same time admit that the MOS doesn't actually say anything about this. Of course, this points matters very little since the list still fails numerous other policies (mentioned and explained by me and others below), including WP:LISTN, WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm making "bad assumptions" is a bit much, don't you think? - No, I don't think that based on a nearly 10 year association with this article.

Lists of creatures, Lists of characters etc are all treated the same when it comes to TV programs" is your own opinion; - No, it's not my opinion. It's the way that we've handled these lists based on my 13 years plus association with the TV project, creating and editing articles, editing the various infoboxes and providing input into the multiple discussions that we have had about MOS:TV over the years. May I ask how many TV articles you have edited?

You can't refer to the MOS for keeping a list of creatures and at the same time admit that the MOS doesn't actually say anything about this. - Yes I can because that's how the system works, at least for the subjects that I have edited. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This reply reads like gatekeeping to me. My previous experience with TV-related articles (I have edited some FYI) has no relevance in this discussion. The fact that you have a "nearly 10 year association" with the article and that you've still failed to see how it violates WP:LISTN, WP:PLOT and WP:GNG is far more problematic. Maybe it's not your opinion but I was forced to assume as much since it is not explicitly covered in the MOS. Yes I can - no you can't???? Your original argument, This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV, becomes entirely void when the MOS does not saying anything about lists other than lists of characters or episodes. You can't appeal to the MOS if what you're talking about isn't actually in the MOS. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My previous experience with TV-related articles (I have edited some FYI) has no relevance in this discussion. It does when you claim that something that I know to be true based on significant experiences is just my opinion.

The fact that you have a "nearly 10 year association" with the article and that you've still failed ... - the fact that you are still harping on this demonstrates that you have failed to understand the problem with supplying sources for the article. The content had sources. Some of the citations in the article have been removed and most of the sources have been lost over time. No doubt this was taken into account at the previous AfDs which is why it survived all three.

Your original argument, ... becomes entirely void - No it doesn't, for the reasons that I have already explained and which you still don't seem to understand. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You never provided anything (and still haven't FYI) to showcase that what you're saying isn't just your opinion. "Still harping this"? It's the fundamental issues with the article that we're discussing - of course I'm still bringing them up since you have still failed to explain why they are not issues or how they could be fixed. Your original argument does become void. If you appealing to the MOS, but what you are saying isn't in the MOS, then there is no argument. Since you bring up the sources that "once existed" below as well, I will be responding to that point below. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles related to Jurassic Park get a combined nearly 30,000 daily views on average (just counting the films and main franchise article), as opposed to around 750 per day for all Primeval related articles, there's really no contest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said there was a contest. The Jurassic Park comparison is still WP:OTHERSTUFF. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - The information here is almost entirely unsourced, and what few sources there are do not appear to be from reliable, secondary sources. The previous AFDs (the most recent being over six years ago, so no, this renomination is not "vexatious") were kept on comments founded entirely on WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments, with no actual policy based arguments as to why this unsourced information passes WP:LISTN. I might have suggested a light merge somewhere if there was actually any reliably sourced information worth preserving, but there is not. Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV.. The concept of Primeval was driven by the success of Walking with Dinosaurs and, while the human stars are important, the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs. There are simply too many to include in the the main article so this article was created. The article doesn't just cover the creatures from Primeval, it also includes creatures from its spinoff, Primeval: New World. Nothing has changed since the last nomination and this nomination seems more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator is incorrect in saying There are no reliable, third-party sources that establish this as a notable subject as there are several reliable secondary sources in the article.Similarly, claims that The information here is almost entirely unsourced is incorrect. There are 23 sources in the article. Much of the information is from actual episodes, which are regarded as acceptable primary sources. That said, at the last AfD the article had 41 references and it now has only 23. I have no idea why many were removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The only commentary that the secondary sources appear to provide on the notability of the animals is the visual development and CGI. This could easily go in the main article. Not to mention half of the links in the references are dead with no archive links and many of the surviving ones appear to be promotional material from ITV or similar. You have a problem when your article relies mostly on primary sources (as WP:PRIMARY very clearly states!). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As I replied to the other person who wanted to keep the article above, I fail to see how my nomination is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; the flaws I point out are actual flaws that go against Knowledge policies. That the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs is a matter of opinion, and MOS:TV says nothing about lists of creatures or monsters. The idea that the 23 sources in the article somehow serve to cite the entire 126 kb list is ridiculous; a vast majority of the info in the list (including many whole entries) is unsourced. The claim that there are several reliable secondary sources in the article is misleading and disingenuous; there are only a handful of sources that are not episodes of the series itself (I mistrust the claim that these would constitute acceptable primary sources) or accompanying websites created by the series production team, many of the sources no longer work as websites have been removed. None of the sources cited succeed in establishing how the creatures in Primeval are a notable subject in of themselves, especially not to the extent that a overly detailed list is needed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion regarding flaws. As for That the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs is a matter of opinion is incorrect. The program is a series that resulted from Walking with Dinosaurs and the purpose was to showcase the dinosaurs. The entire premise is the interaction with dinosaurs in the modern day with the humans being the means to achieve that end.

there are only a handful of sources that are not episodes of the series itself It was more than a handful. but obviously some have been removed but WP:N doesn't define a set number of references provided for each klobyte. In fact you should be looking at readable prose, not the file size, of which there is only 82kB. That's one reference for every 3.56kB of readable prose.

I mistrust the claim that these would constitute acceptable primary sources - Mistrust all you want. There is a long-standing acknowledgement that episodes constitute acceptable primary sources. If you have an issue with that, take it up at WT:TV.

many of the sources no longer work as websites have been removed. - That is irrelevant. WP:DEADREF is clear: Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The article has survived 3 previous well-attended nominations, all of which were closed as "Keep", not "no consensus". That's a clear signal that the community does not see a need to delete this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The article was last nominated for deletion six years ago if the last AfD was one month ago or even one or two years ago I could see your point, but don't pretend that a 2014 AfD is a barrier to a new nomimation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That it was last nominated 6 years ago demonstrates that in that time nobody has thought the article needs deletion. That the opinions are from 6 years ago isirrelevant. Notability is not temporary. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A clear signal from over five years ago, mind you. I would wager that popular opinion has shifted since.

For what this article should look like, we may look to any featured list of characters from a television program. Consider List of The Mandalorian characters. Each character is summarized with both one paragraph of plot (sourced to secondary sources) and one paragraph of commentary on the character's development history and reception. There is literally not one sentence that is not supported by a citation.

Now suppose we pared down this article so that each creature listed would have commentary of similar quality. We might be left with a few sentences each for the future predator, megopteran, and maybe Anurognathus, Pristichampsus, the giant spider, and the camo beast. There is nothing here that isn't either plot-derived fancruft or something that can go in a "creature design" section on the main page. Strong case for at least a merge if not a delete. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And what exactly is popular opinion? We don't delete articles just because opinion has changed.

For what this article should look like ... I actually agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, the article has been edited significantly in the past 6 years by people who don't seem to understand that these are fictional dinosaurs, many only loosely based on the original dinosaurs. The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. Additionally, people were changing descriptions to something based on the real dinosaurs, not the dinosaurs that were featured. Most recently, an editor made significant changes to the article, none of which I've had time to check yet and some of the edits are dubious. As I said, at the last AfD the article had about 40 citations. That has been reduced to 23 for unknown reasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got little to add to the counter-arguments by Lythronaxargestes and Hemiauchenia, but "the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs" is definitely a matter of opinion unless you can substantiate this claim with sources. The premise of the series or what previous work the production company did (Walking with Dinosaurs was created in 1999, eight years before Primeval, a more direct precursor would be Prehistoric Park) makes no difference. I can only speak about the article as it stands now and I am not wrong in there only being a handful of non-primary sources in the article, which (as previously pointed out) goes against WP:PRIMARY. Having a list of this type, this extensive, for Primeval and sourcing it is going to be impossible without almost exclusively using primary sources - a massive problem. The fact that there are so few non-primary sources speaks against the notability of this topic. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources on fictional topics are fine for supporting information, but not for establishing notability. The fact that nearly every source here is primary does not actually help this pass WP:LISTN. And its not just the episodes themselves that are the primary sources - all of the links to ITV's website would be considered primary as well, as they are the network that produced and aired the series. Its true that character lists can be valid splits from notable series, but those lists still need to be able to be comprised of information cited to reliable, secondary sources, and be able to pass WP:LISTN. There have been plenty of character lists that have not survived an AFD due to not being able to pass those requirements. Rorshacma (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources from the 2014 version of the article were either A. secondary sources (like academic books etc) that discussed the actual prehistoric animal, but were irrelevant to Primeval itself, B. citations to episodes and other primary sourced material about Primeval, which do not establish notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was also inclined to make the comparison to lists of characters, at first, but there's simply not a comparable amount of information to be said. Characters are original creations of the show which can warrant their own sections of information each, but these are mostly real animals and as such there's very little to say about them in relation to Primeval in particular. Ultimately I don't hold a strong stance either way but I don't think carrying the logic form those examples holds up. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

One could make the case that the future animals are original creations but I doubt there is a lot of commentary to be cited. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

but these are mostly real animals - That is incorrect and is part of the problem. Most of the creatures are fictionalised versions of "real" dinosaurs but many are not. As I've already stated elsewhere the article has been edited significantly in the past 6 years by people who don't seem to understand that these are fictional dinosaurs, many only loosely based on the original dinosaurs. The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. Additionally, people were changing descriptions to something based on the real dinosaurs, not the dinosaurs that were featured.

I doubt there is a lot of commentary to be cited. - Such commentary has been referred to as fancruft. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The commentary being offered currently is being labelled as fancruft here precisely because it isn't cited. It's just fans writing stuff. Had it been attributable to a source discussing these creatures, their significance and their differences to real animals there would not be a problem. The fact of the matter is that there are no reliable sources that can be used to cite such commentary, which in turn means that the topic as a whole is not notable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncited content does not automatically become fancruft either.

there are no reliable sources that can be used to cite such commentary, which in turn means that the topic as a whole is not notable. - That's not at all correct. Perhaps you read WP:N, specifically WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the significant, independent (per WP:GNG) coverage of how creatures in Primeval differ from their real counterparts? Examples, please. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As Lythronaxargestes alludes to, there is no significant independent coverage of how the creatures in Primeval differ from the real creatures that they are based on. No, uncited content is not automatically fancruft but if said uncited content can't be cited because it's just fans that have been writing it without consulting any sources, then that uncited content is original research and fancruft, unsuitable for inclusion on Knowledge. Since Knowledge is built on reliable sources, a topic for which no reliable sources exist should not have an article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the significant, independent - Primeval finished airing over 9 years ago. Like just about every other TV program, sources tend to be archived or deleted over time and disappear from the web. Many are never archived by sites like archive.org while the program is airing. This is a continuing problem with most TV programs and Primeval is no different. That doesn't mean the sources never existed. At the time, because it was a current program and Walking with Dinosaurs had been so popular, there was discussion. Unfortunately, also like most programs, those editing the article didn't always add sources when they should have. Unfortunately, my involvement with the articles didn't start until less than a year before the final episode so it was too late for me to add them.

if said uncited content can't be cited because it's just fans that have been writing it without consulting any sources, - I like to assume good faith as we are supposed to do but I do check articles as I'm watching through a series and most of what was in the article back then was taken directly from the episodes, as well as some external sources. When I was working on {{Infobox Primeval creature}} I had to verify a lot of information that didn't seem right so I don't believe there was much, if any, fancruft back then. More recently, fancruft may have been added but that's not a reason to delete an article, that's a reason to fix the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PUBLISH: all reliable sources must be both published and accessible. Postulating the hypothetical existence of unarchived sources is in no way sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In the same way a play staged in Cambridge in 1639 is not notable if there are no surviving sources that discuss it even if it was the talk of the town. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Postulating the hypothetical existence - There is no postulation involved. I see that you have been editing Knowledge for 6 years. Surely you must be familiar with what happens to sources over time. Maybe it's different in the dinosaur world where things happen more slowly. I the TV world there is a huge turnover.

In the same way a play staged in Cambridge in 1639 is not notable if there are no surviving sources - Notability is not temporary. Something doesn't become non-notable just because sources have disappeared. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making postulations. You can assume all you want that editors throughout the list's existence used sources to back up what they were writing, but you haven't presented any evidence that they've done that and without any surviving sources (if sources had been used it would have been a huge coincidence that every single source that drew comparisons between the animals and their real-life counterparts happened to disappear) it matters very little. Lythronaxargestes is entirely correct in that reliable sources need to be published and accessible, which any hypothetical sources are not in this case. Something does not become non-notable if sources disappear, no, but in this case there is considerable doubt if any sources existed in the first place and thus if the subject was ever notable. Furthermore, articles (and lists) need to be built on reliable sources; if sources don't exist the articles shouldn't either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making postulations. - Not at all. The sources existed. Remember, I was editing the articles near the end of the series' airing, so I know what was around.

You can assume all you want - Indeed. WP:AGF is one of Knowledge's fundamental principles but, as I've already said, I've verified a lot of the information that was in the article. Not so much the recent stuff but definitely the earlier content.

it would have been a huge coincidence that every single source that drew comparisons between the animals and their real-life counterparts happened to disappear - No it wouldn't. As I've already said, this happens with TV articles all the time.

in this case there is considerable doubt if any sources existed in the first place - That's not assuming good faith. Were you editing Knowledge TV articles back in the early 2010s? You can't say no sources existed if you don't have proof.

if sources don't exist the articles shouldn't either. - That's true when articles are initially created but, 9 years after a program has stopped airing, you can expect that most sources won't exist anymore and this sis supported by WP:DEADREF. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the list as it was in July 2011, less than a month after the series stopped airing, when it supposedly contained all those additional reliable sources you're talking about. There are more sources featured, yes, but the list still suffered from the exact same problems back then, with most entries lacking sources and most of them being composed of unnecessary plot summaries. Almost none of the references serve to establish this as notable in any way, with many being references to the episodes themselves (failing to establish notability since they are not independent of the source material), the accompanying ITV websites or websites relating to the production of the series such as the Framestore site or the site of Douglas Henshall, an actor who appeared in the show. Other references to stuff like papers in journals work to cite the real-world bits but do nothing for the stuff in the actual show and do not work if used to cite differences between the real animals and the ones in the series since they do not include that commentary. "I've verified a lot of the information that was in the article" yeah, well it didn't hold up in 2011 either... Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete as being unsourced, non-notable fancruft, Content could easily be covered (more intelligibly, I might add) on the list of episodes (if there is one). And if fans really want this list, I'm sure Fandom/Wikia has a place for it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Both of those claims are incorrect. There are 23 sources in the article so it's clearly not unsourced and plot information is not fancruft unless there is excessive, unnecessary detail. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unsourced in so far that a majority of the content is unsourced. I don't see how it is not extremely evident from just looking at the article that there indeed is excessive, unnecessary detail. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

When I read through the article (and yes, I read through the entire thing), I was looking at how many of the entries had citations attached to them, rather than the number at the bottom. Most did not; as such, I would call it unsourced for that reason.

There is also an excess of barely-understandable plot details. Additionally, the pictures should either be removed or replaced with ones from the actual show.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

An article lacking sources is not considered to be unsourced. Even external links are considered to be sources when it comes to deletion. (Try prodding an article with no citations and only 1 external link as unsourced. The prod will be rejected) Where content is unsourced it should be deleted or, better still, the unsourced content should be tagged with {{citation needed}}.

there indeed is excessive, unnecessary detail - I do agree but that is not a reason for deletion. Some additional detail is necessary to differentiate between the real dinosaurs and the fictional dinosaurs.

the pictures should either be removed or replaced with ones from the actual show. - It helps to read the entire discussion before commenting I've already said The article used to be full of screenshots from the series that showed what the dinosaurs that featured in the series looked like, but they were deleted because it was considered to be an excess usage of non-free content. They were replaced with drawings of "actual" dinosaurs, many of which look nothing like the fictionalised versions. It would be much better to have screenshots, but that was rejected. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But the additional detail doesn't differentiate between the real dinosaurs and the fictional dinosaurs? 90% of the article is literally plot summaries. Putting in the "real" dinosaurs would make barely any difference. I can literally just go to List of Primeval episodes for the same content. If we cut out all of the plot fancruft we'd be left with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH commentary on the inaccuracies of the depictions. In principle that's the kind of content the article should have, but this simply can't be reliably sourced. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. killer bee  13:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per User:Rorshacma. There just aren't the sources to justify something like this. And there is rarely anything to be said about under-characterized in-universe elements that would arise beyond WP:PLOT, which has been a policy that articles are expected to pass. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Knowledge is not a fancruft monster manual directory for TV series. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete A list that gets into overly intense detail about the source material, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:LISTN says nothing about excessive detail. Excessive detail is not a reason to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The list still fails WP:LISTN since it directly goes against this bit: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. There aren't any independent reliable sources that discuss the material in this article as a set in any meaningful way, much less any reliable sources that could be used for its content. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I am gobsmacked that this has survived so many AfDs. Very blatant failure of LISTN and GNG, not to mention OR concerns. There is no evidence whatsoever that this has gained enough real world coverage and significance to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. By all means, create a Primeval fandom wiki and host the content there. Spiderone 23:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed one exists and has a better list... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete as a failure of WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and WP:PLOT. There is no out-of-universe context from reliable secondary sources to meet Knowledge guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Progression of England association football goalscoring record

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Progression of Australia association football goalscoring record

Articles for deletion/Progression of England association football goalscoring record

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

For the following reasons:

Per consensus established in this similar AfD.
No evidence that the topic of 'progression of ___ goalscoring record' meets the requirements for a stand-alone list as per WP:LISTN
There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well
Knowledge is more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS per WP:NOTMIRROR
Also borderline WP:SYNTH concerns

No prejudice against merging if a suitable target is suggested. Spiderone 16:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete WP:SYNTH, this information is pretty much covered by other articles. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge with England national football team records or similar article. Giant Snowman 20:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - there might be some material that could go into a relate article, but I agree with the points raised by the nominator. Also in my view some of the content is touching on trivia. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 07:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Progression of Belgium association football goalscoring record

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Progression of Australia association football goalscoring record

Articles for deletion/Progression of Belgium association football goalscoring record

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

For the following reasons:

Per consensus established in this similar AfD.
No evidence that the topic of 'progression of ___ goalscoring record' meets the requirements for a stand-alone list as per WP:LISTN
There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well
Knowledge is more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS per WP:NOTMIRROR
Also borderline WP:SYNTH concerns

No prejudice against merging if a suitable target is suggested. Spiderone 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Belgium national football team records or similar article. Giant Snowman 20:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I fail to see why this should be merged into an article that's already excessive with statistic. Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, it's SYNTH/OR since the article creator manually counts goals and makes up the list as a secondary source. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Paulina Nin de Cardona

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

To closer: see my comment below this nomination Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a candidate never elected to office. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST, and WP:GNG.

NJOURNALIST:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." -- no evidence of this in RS
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." -- no evidence
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- not the case
"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." -- not the case

ANYBIO:

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -- no evidence of this
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." (note: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.") -- this is not the case here
"The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." -- not evident

GNG:

" significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- no evidence of this in reliable sources that is above routine coverage
""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." -- reliable sources not exactly available nor plentiful and don't cover her as an individual

TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC); rationale expanded 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep There does appear to be coverage of her as a television presenter on es-wiki, and a very cursory before search shows she passes WP:GNG in Chilean articles. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Having an article in another edition of wikipedia (I did check the ES one) is not a reason to keep one here. Each project has their own notability standards and another wiki cannot be a source for enwiki, nor can tabloids be taken seriously. A WP:BEFORE search turns up coverage that she lost the election, but not much else of note. In order to establish notability multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner not only have to exist, but also must be found. There is a serious lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. What I did find was a lot of tabloid content and interviews; interviews do nothing for notability. (This may be a Google translate error but) sources cannot even agree if she is male or female (I have found both). --TheSandDoctor 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My argument is not that she is notable here because she is notable on es-wiki, but that the references on the Spanish language wiki were not about her political bid and led me to a WP:BEFORE search which found other WP:GNG coverage that's not related to her failed candidacy. She's clearly been significantly covered in Chile and is eligible for an article. She is also (sigh) clearly female, which is obvious to anyone who doesn't treat Google Translate as canon (or as in my instance just reads the articles straight up in the Spanish.) Not all of these necessarily pass WP:GNG but these were the first few of many hits: SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You are right, I have struck the above bit about he/she confusion in sources as they are clearly translation errors. I did not mean to come across misogynist or transphobic etc.

fmdos appears to be trivial routine coverage

t13.cl again appears to be trivial (not even about her forsay but a story she covered) routine coverage

theclinic -- majority of this is an interview; interviews do not contribute towards notability

elciudadano is a rehash of an interview conducted with her on a Chilean TV program. Interviews don't help towards notability but can be used as a primary source to help verify article content.

If I am shown 2 reliable sources that clearly pass WP:GNG (e.g. non-trivial coverage of her, different reliable publications that are independent of her, not interviews/tabloids etc), I will happily withdraw (assuming SK1 is still met as a viable option). I just haven't found any. --TheSandDoctor 18:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I really don't care enough about this article to make you happy considering I think WP:GNG is super clear from just a simple search, and I probably won't post here again, but just as an example, here's an article from 2016 about her receiving an award for work done in 1992: . In an interview about her failed campaign, she said "the people know me." in a headline. She's clearly been known in Chile for decades. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not attained on basis of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC).
Keep She is mostly known for being the host of news programmes during the Chilean dictatorship, definitely not because of running for mayor of Pichilemu. --Kuatrero (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Notability requires verifible evidence in reliable sources that are non-trivial in nature per WP:GNG. So far, nothing has been found or demonstrated proving this. --TheSandDoctor 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What's particularly odd about this AfD: first, at AfDs, I have to search pretty specifically to find coverage if I want to keep the article. The issue with this article is that there is so much coverage of her in a simple search that figuring out what might qualify as an RS is difficult because you'll click on what looks like a feature article and it's an interview. She easily passes WP:NJOURNALISM #1 and #3. The second is that the nominator's fighting pretty hard to delete this one for some reason - the "show me RS and I'll keep" as if they're the gatekeeper for the AfD, responding to both keep !voters so far even though this one is one of the more fairly obvious keeps I've seen. I've done a before search, there's pages upon pages of articles which feature her as the subject, I don't care about updating the article, but I'm clearly satisfied WP:GNG is met for the purposes of her notability, even if that's not currently reflected in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Upon further extensive searching for sources in case I was missing something, I uncovered this list of archived Chilean newspaper articles in Spanish which was missed in my initial BEFORE searches prior to this nomination. Based on this and with a touch of WP:AGF (re "multiple, independent" sources with different authors), it appears that the subject is indeed covered sufficiently in offline sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Were this still eligible for SK1, I would indeed close it as speedy keep; I am not sure if I can !vote "keep" at an AfD that I nominated outside of SK1, but if I could I would (if I can, please consider this as such). --TheSandDoctor 06:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - this AfD has turned up enough evidence of WP:GNG; article is in desperate need of improvement and attention but shouldn't be deleted Spiderone 21:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was merge to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 4). (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 4 Buzzz

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

Talk show spin-off of a reality TV show. Does not pass WP:GNG: most references do not mention Buzzz and those that do are mostly passing mentions or not independent. I suggest it is deleted or merged into Bigg Boss 4. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Bigg Boss (Telugu season 4): post-broadcast show completely tied to the main show, no notability separate from main show. Ravensfire (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge with Bigg Boss (Telugu season 4) per Ravensfire. --Ab207 (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge with Bigg Boss (Telugu season 4) per Nom and Ravensfire. Roller26 (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ajay Chaudhary Surat

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL, stood up for election from Choryasi constituency but lost. A BEFORE search does turn up anything that would help him pass the WP:GNG. The article was recently deleted as A7. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per NPOL and WP:MILL. Mid-level party leader. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete clearly fails WP:NPOL.VocalIndia (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete: No significant coverage failing WP:BIO and WP:NPOL Roller26 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Politician who is clearly not notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Man Who Invented the Third Reich

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

Based on the sparse, unflattering comments at amazon.ca, no reviews is probably a good thing all around, but that means WP:NBOOK isn't satisfied. Not even mentioned in the author's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I'd say that this should redirect to the author, but his own page is questionable in its current state. I tried looking for sourcing, but the best I could find was a Booklist review and this one sentence mention in a book about Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. It seems like it was pretty solidly snubbed as far as the academic and scholarly crowds go and pop culture sources didn't pay much mind to it either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, looks like the author may be notable, although he may not necessarily want an article since it would mention the plagiarism allegations about him that was brought up in articles like this one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I see that ReaderofthePack in their usual thorough, commendable way has totally revamped Stan Lauryssens such that it now does mention this book, but the book itself is not notable and it's such an implausible search term—and potentially NPOV redirect—that I'd say deletion is better than redirection here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any additional sources, so fails WP:NBOOK. AleatoryPonderings' argument against a redirect is persuasive. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I couldn't find a single review of the book in acacemic works. 25 citations on Google Scholar. Low impact. But I have no objections to redirect if the book is mentioned in the author's biography, WP:CHEAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Elkhorn, Mariposa County, California

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

Durham calls it a place north of Indian Gulch and sources it to a map of gold mines. Doesn't have a GNIS entry and doesn't appear on topographic maps. Newspapers.com hits are for places in other counties. Looks to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. No post office. Confirmed that it is not in GNIS. Searching Newspapers.com for "Elkhorn Mariposa" birth announcement and measles and that's about it. Does not meet #1 or #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was draftify Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent

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

This is an unreleased film. According to film notability guidelines, unreleased films only are considered notable if the film has begun principal photography (or animation) AND if production itself has been notable, that is, has received significant coverage. Nothing in this article indicates that the production has been notable, only that it has happened. The fact that the film has a major actor, Nicolas Cage, does not in itself make it notable.

This article has been created more than once in both article space and draft space and has had history merged, and apparently after the history merge was put into article space rather than draft space. This article should be moved back into draft space until the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draftify with a big trout for Anthony Appleyard for this. Clearly fails NFILM even under the best of times. With all of the uncertainty of the current world, every scheduled project has a huge question mark over it. - SummerPhD 18:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Friends of Dard Hunter

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Looks rather non-notable. References/external links in the article are primary sources, unreliable, or not really about the organization. A little bit of content here. That website's crap, but it's apparently a reprint of a journal of some sort, so probably reliable. The background here implies that the organization is somewhat affiliated with the museum, so probably not independent coverage. Beyond that, largely just getting blogs and meeting announcments. This 345-member group doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Russell Lyon

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, most detail appears to be unreferenced. Seems to be a geneology project by a WP:SPA. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Drum, Mariposa County, California

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

I can't access Durham, which is the only source in the article, but since there's no GNIS entry, it doesn't appear on topographic maps, and I can't get anything about this one to turn up on newspapers.com or Google Books, I don't think this is something that meets WP:GEOLAND. Likely some sort of railroad feature. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. No post office. Searching Newspapers.com for "Drum Mariposa in California" and "Drum Briceburg in California" was no help. Confirmed that GNIS does not show a Drum in Mariposa county. Not to be confused with Drum, Placer County, California, which did have a post office. Cxbrx (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was merge to Rail Road Flat, California. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Independence, Calaveras County, California

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

I've held off dealing with this one for a long time due to searching issues and the lack of help provided by such sources as I could find, which consist entirely of topos and aerials. They all show a vague scattering of buildings, seemingly suburban houses in more recent aerials, and that is everything I can find out. Searching is a huge pain, of course, not helped at all by another far more prominent town in a different county and a similarly named place in the same county— and by the innumerable other places in the country named "Independence". That said, I found one reference that might have been a mine that might have been at this location; other than that, the topos are, ultimately, the only source. Gudde discusses the name in general but doesn't talk of any specific Independence in the state. If someone can do better, I would happily yield to their findings, but as it stands, there just is nothing beyond the most basic gazetteer info, which we have held is not enough for notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge or Delete Merge with Rail Road Flat, California or delete. Independence, Calaveras County had no post office. Searching newspapers.com for "Independence Calaveras" yields: a DFG meeting held there, a scholarship winner, an obit, another obit. Independence is quite close to Rail Road Flat, though both have separate names on the topo map. Note that there is also Independence Flat, California, which has no GNIS entry. Do not be confused by U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Independence Hall, which is about an hour away from the locale under consideration. This locale is not legally recognized (The DFG meeting there and being on a topo map are not sufficient), so it does not meet #1 WP:GEOLAND. The coverage is fairly trivial, so it does not really meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge with Rail Road Flat, California per above. No consistent records. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Mark Llewellyn-Slade

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article does not pass GNG. Perhaps his business is notable, but that would require a different page and focus. The sources of this article do not focus on Llewellyn-Slade, but on a business he founded. Kbabej (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete The sources show GNG for his business but not for him. Perhaps there should be a page on the company, writeen by someone without a COI.GDX420 (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Pearce (darts player)

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

Notability concerns. The only references are statistical databases, and no substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG found. Lost in the first round of the tournament mentioned in the article, which doesn't suggest prominence in the sport. There is no NDARTS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete not actual sources related to his musical career, and not substantial enough sources about being a darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris Dale

AfDs for this article:

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

See the deletion review for Sack Trick for the background and history to this nomination. Simply put, this musician is not notable. A previous, virtually unattended AfD was recently closed as no consensus, but this is no obstacle to a fresh AfD nomination. —S Marshall T/C 01:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 01:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep or redirect - This article was nominated for AFD only a very short time ago, and this second nomination is bordering on being an abuse of process. Additionally, if this article can not be kept, it should be redirected to Tank (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it's an abuse of process, considering that you and the nominator were the only participants in the last AFD. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject at the moment, but the previous AFD wasn't much of anything. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no issue with this AfD being relisted so soon, since it is intended to solve a problem identified at DRV and the last AfD. We could achieve the same discussion if we took the last AfD to DRV and had it relisted for lack of participation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Except that I found my way here from DRV - and others did as well. Sadly this article will be Collateral damage as a result. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I just can't find anything that passes the NMUSICIAN or GNG bars. The sourcing in the article is all affiliated/unreliable, so it's useless. Additional coverage includes a couple passing mentions in Forbes, a passing mention in Blabbermouth, a passing mention in metalsucks, and then blogs and user-generated sources. He's put out quite a bit of material, but nothing that seems to have caught much attention in RS (or non-RS, for that matter). According to the article, he's been associated with six bands with articles, so a redirect would have major WP:XY issues. With nowhere to redirect to, and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, I think this article has to go. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I considered nominating this myself after doing research into the DRV and even ran a before search - I can find mentions of him, but not in reliable secondary sources, so he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP Clearly a considerable and notable contribution to his field. Yellowxander (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

According to which sources, please?—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources listed, such as Forbes, The Guardian. Am looking for more usable sources to see if worthwhile. Yellowxander (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no source from Forbes. There's a self-published source hosted by Forbes.com, which is not a reliable source. The Guardian ref doesn't mention Dale even as a namedrop; it's about a documentary that the article claims, with zero independent reliable sourcing despite the refbombing, that Dale's writings inspired. —Cryptic 13:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvwitt (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Knowledge, and thanks for making your first edit! We hope you like the place and decide to stay.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuzt11 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

And to you, also, welcome! How very remarkable it is that two brand new editors should use this AfD as a place to make their very first contributions.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. One of the worst-sourced and most excessively padded biographies I have seen. There's really nothing out there of any weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Cant find anything that passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. NonsensicalSystem_(.log) 12:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete a failure of GNG. With musicians we do not go with GNG per se but with the slightly more stringent music bio rules and this is even less met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Scream For Me Sarajevo looks potentially notable. Maybe recreate this title as a redirect there if someone cares to write the article, and if the current article's claims about Dale's connection to it can be reliably substantiated. —Cryptic 13:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that would pass WP:GNG with the reviews. I also found , which is the best source I've found on Dale specifically to date (possibly classified as an interview, but still), but I couldn't find anything else that wasn't just a mention with regards to him and the docko. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Surely SFMS should be covered under an article for Skunkworks (band) or Skunkworks discography, rather than as a separate article? Note that Skunkworks (band) currently doesn't have an article, being instead covered under Skunkworks (album).—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

SFMS is an independent documentary, inspired by the attention gained by the memoirs of Chris, so he should not redirect to that. Also Skunkworks was not a band, it was an album by Bruce Dickinson, so he should also not redirect to that. the Sack Trick page and their albums were deleted due to lack of references - and that would work redirecting to the Chris Dale page as he is the band leader, writer and constant member but Chris redirecting to any other page wouldn't really make any sense imo. Yellowxander (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Another option would be to Redirect and WP:SALT to prevent future recreation. It appears that some – let's say, outside influences – are determined to maintain this page despite no clear display of notability. KidAd talk 22:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Update - I've sourced maybe double the amount of references now, as requested by the banner. I'm not getting into an edit war with those on a power trip, you're going to do whatever you want. This article has been here for 10 years no problem and there are a FAR lot worse articles out there with barely any info, let alone referencing them. As a music researcher I go down plenty of rabbit holes with profiles such as this and they're very helpful indeed. I guess wiki has some kind of stance on musicians now as it's evident a lot of individuals are having their pages deleted lately. Oh well Yellowxander (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No number of name drops, passing mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources add up to notability. That requires a substantial amount of reference material which is both independent and reliable. Reference bombing doesn't change that. Seraphimblade 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The article was recently blanketed with sources but unfortunately I'm not seeing which of those together would be considered significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Per Hog Farm above, it's all passing mentions of the topic and little about Dale himself in specific. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what constitutes as independent if it has to be not from the subjects own source, ie website - which is obviously direct evidence anyway, yet an article on an independent website is still not independent enough? And this obsession about reliable - Why is an article going to be publishing false facts? I don't really understand what you're all crying about tbh. I've found independent reliable sources to cite a statement or fact - yet they're not independent or reliable enough. Some aren't about him only mention - well done, that's called a reference! Whatever, have fun, peace. Yellowxander (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Unless Dale has got articles about him specifically in Billboard or Rolling Stone, I can't see how we can write a neutral article about him. Ritchie333 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Gareth Pass

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete no sign of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson (darts player)

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

Notability concerns. The only references are statistical databases, and no substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG found. Lost in the first round of the tournaments mentioned in the article, which doesn't suggest prominence in the sport. There is no NDARTS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete we need actual substantial sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)