Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 December	14 December >

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burly Bear

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

Promotional page for Instagram dog, created and largely written by SPA. WP:BEFORE shows two pieces of local coverage, and another "Burly Bear" that isn't the dog. No evidence this passes WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. SPA creator tried to restore the WP:DAILYMAIL as a source, presumably because that's one of the few there was - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles which I am yet to post on to this wikipedia page, it just finding the time. he has been featured on lost of different newspapers and it is my first page that i have created there was no need to turn round and type so what when i thought it was an important piece to include. Yahoo Mirror Daily mail daily hearald it was put back on because he is in the article.
- Please reread the Wikipedia notability guidelines. The Daily Mail is a deprecated source and shouldn't be used for anything, let alone a claim of notability - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok what about Yahoo mirror? All the others and the articles from different countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki11221122 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, the Yahoo! mirror of the literally paid press releases site? Syndicated sources are judged by the reliability of the original site - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. (The Southwark News, eh?) William Harristalk 08:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found nothing significant for this article to pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say there is lots of coverage, but it's decidedly trashy and/or local interest. Any dog would be ashamed of this page. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG thoroughly. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 23:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no evidence to pass it on to WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 21:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The !votes were evently split between keeping, merging, and deleting, and two different merge targets were put forward. I strongly recommend that editors interest in these Marvel lists join to discuss how to best present the information therein, or lists like this will likely end up at AfD again. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics demons

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

This is just a list of trivial, seemingly unrelated concepts with no notability. There is no reason to justify this as a fork article because there are hundreds of series articles and many character lists that handle the general characters. The topics themselves are too minor to need coverage. TTN (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fancruft and an unhealthy dose of WP:OR to boot ("others" who "are powerful and evil enough to be considered demons"). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics.
Keep or merge into List of deities in Marvel Comics per BOZ. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I wasn't sure if it should be Cosmic entities, or Deities. :) BOZ (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Trivial topic. Dark Knight 2149 22:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough blue links to justify the existence of the list. Dream Focus 20:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Put it out of its misery, nothing to merge, that other list won't survive much longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. We need to store the known demons on this page. Plus, we would have to sort the cosmic entities from the demons if it was to be merged with that page or merged with the List of deities in Marvel Comics. Plus, @Dream Focus: is right about their claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTN serves WP to keep such lists. Also there are enough blue links to justify the existence of the list. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Thornby

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

A self-published author and self-proclaimed ghost hunter. The majority of the information here is unsourced, and the few references that are included are mostly from non-reliable sources (his own writings, non-notable websites, etc). It seems he did get a few mentions in Fortean Times, but as that is a publication dedicated to fringe paranormal theories, I'm not sure if the coverage from that counts as a reliable source for establishing notability. Searching for additional sources brought up absolutely nothing but mirrors of this article, so I don't see this passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if the Fortean Times were considered the best source for this article, it seems like there is only passing reference this person. Removing all statements with problematic references in this article bring it into the territory of an unreferenced BLP. Ryan shell (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any RS on this person, and very few non-RS. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our guidelines on making sure that fringe figures our covered well with reliable sources before we create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable sources, Alex-h (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG generally and WP:FRINGE specifically. We are not a web-host for ghost hunters (say that three times quickly). Bearian (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by carbon intensity

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

I suggest this article is not useful to readers because:

1) The stats in the article are very detailed and out of date.

2) I doubt anyone will want to spend time updating the stats.

3) I don't think carbon intensity is a useful way to measure countries: because a very poor country with low emissions could have the same value as a very rich country with high emissions - however the poor country may need to increase its emissions without necessarily increasing its GDP - for example certain changes to the way people grow their own food to make sure they get enough to eat. Similarly some rich countries, e.g. Japan, may have much less renewable energy resources than others.

4) Article only covers energy so the title is misleading.

5) Other greenhouse gases are also important.

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. If someone wants to update the stats, then they can (and if not, it will eventually get deleted as abandoned). If the stats are fixed (that's the only way the article would be useful), then #4 can be addressed with a page move and #3 and #5 are normal-type limitations of a measurement. A paragraph added to the article to explain the limitations would fix that. But with stats from 2011, then the article doesn't have much of a use. So draftify to give people an opportunity to fix the stats. 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks I had not heard of draftifying before. Sounds good. But does that mean someone has to put the draft under their account?Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would just need to be taken to the draft space, where it would hang out waiting for people to edit it. After about six months in the draft space with no edits, it would likely be considered to be abandoned and then deleted. The idea is that once it enters the draft space, it gets edited and fixed. Basically the idea is that the article could be potentially be a usable article, but has flaws that need to be addressed before the article should be returned to the public view (in this case, 8-year old stats that need updating badly). Hog Farm (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you have more accountants, you pollute less. This will save the world. Anarchangel (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand your point about accountants.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against deleting this article. Old statistics are still useful. I suggest changing the name to "List of countries by carbon intensity (1980-2011)". A new article "List of countries by carbon intensity" could be created with much less detail to keep track. The single table format of the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions article is a good example. If we delete this article, should we delete all of these articles in five years time? List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by carbon intensity, List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions, List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions, List of companies by carbon dioxide emissions per year List of countries by carbon intensity, List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions, [List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita]], List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions and List of companies by carbon dioxide emissions per year Maybe statisticians (and accountants) "are our last hope for the world's ecosystems".Oceanflynn (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)^[1][reply]

References

^ Watts, Jonathan (2010-10-28). "Are accountants the last hope for the world's ecosystems?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-07.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator appears to want this deleted because the information is out of date, not a reason for deletion, keepers above appear to want it retained because its useful, not a reason to keep it, we need more for it to meet WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I would say that it should be deleted because it is useless. Who is it useful for and how? However if these discussions should proceed via Wikpedia jargon then yes it is up to whoever wants to keep it to say how it meets WP:LISTN.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little encyclopedic value in this article other than a massive list of stats which very little context. Ajf773 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the moment, this page is the only source of this data. The original spreadsheet has been removed from the US Energy Information Administration's page for unknown reasons and is only partly archived at the internet archive. The subject, carbon intensity by country by year, is important enough to be referenced almost 100 times in articles and papers by the Energy Information Administration as well as in many other outside articles but that same agency does not provide the raw data any more. This article is notable and useful for anyone reading those or other articles who wish to verify the data. ^[1] 69.209.27.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand 69.209.27.128 right they are arguing that Wikipedia is the only source of some of the data? I thought that was against Wikipedia policy such as WP:RELIABLE so is that not an argument to delete? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While interesting if it wasn't a just a tabulation of data WP:ISNOT, even doing that wouldn't satisfy the policy. If a source creates a map of this data showing a snapshot for a recent year, say 2018, then that's a great image to put in a climate change related article. These data really aren't suitable for a list article though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calebin

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

Notability not established per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sources provided are dubious (i.e. identical fawning prose but with different bylines). ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom.Celestina007 (talk) 13:09 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. This page is completely lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. We have tended to delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Musicians are supposed to collaborate. I don't see good evidence of touring as a musician, but ping me if you find any such thing. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational 2019

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

Non-notable beauty pageant. Article recreated after being deleted under G7. Mister Supranational has also been deleted and/or draftified several times. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable. Has been deleted previously at AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Supranational. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability at all. (As Discospinster and Alexf say, Mister Supranational has been deleted as non-notable, and if the whole thing is not notable then one year's edition of it can scarcely be notable, so I can see the logic in Alexf's suggestion of speedy deletion. However, that would require an application of IAR, since this is not a copy of the same page, as required by CSD G4, and "Non-notable" is not a speedy deletion criterion.) JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not even wrong. Where do I begin? The alleged winner is allegedly not even American, but Polish. 8/10 judges are not notable. I've heard of this event, but to allow the article to continue and to cover the full story would almost certainly violate WP:BLP and WP:OR. We are not a scandal rag. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obscure event sourced to "Conan Daily". MozeTak (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2019 in Sri Lanka. target per suggestion of article creator. It's not set in stone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the article but I was not WP:TOOEARLY as the issue began on 25 November. I created with the assumption that the news will be further updated and develpoed in coming days. I will agree upon what fellow Wikipedians think about this nomination. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as zero case has been presented for why it should be removed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW the article is well developed and has enough in-depth, quality sourcing to pass WP:GNG with flying colors. Recommend closing this quickly. This doesn't need a week's debate. --Jayron 32 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find a reason why this article should be deleted, and the nominator certainly doesn't provide a compelling argument otherwise ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Afd can be similarly treated to this Afd on Embassy of Indonesia, Colombo. I can recommend the article to merge with Sri Lanka-Switzerland relations. I don't think there is much specialty about this article but the content is supported well with refs. rupa$$$ (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I guess this is sensibly stupid. Look at the Murder of Yvonne Jonsson which was a prolonged issue between Sweden and Sri Lanka since that Royal Park murder in 2005. The convict was given Presidential pardon by former outgoing President Maithripala Sirisena and the issue is over. This too will soon finish within few days. It will be pointless and waste of time to have such an article. Better to merge with 2019 in Sri Lanka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.216.89 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as a WP:ROUTINE event and this clearly passes GNG. Not a major reason to delete. Juxlos (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences to Sri Lanka–Switzerland relations. This is a minor diplomatic tiff that is not going to rate a footnote in the history books. It's generating some short term news coverage but the long term significance is likely to be somewhere near zero and it fails the WP:10YT test. See also WP:Recentism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As that article has no other content, it would immediately fail WP:WEIGHT (which, unlike 10YT, is actual policy). Jeez, it'd make more sense to AfD the "relations" article (not suggesting we actually do so). GreatCaesarsGhost 19:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10YT is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. It carries a certain amount of weight in its own right, given it is a distillation of several policies. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOTNEWS and TOOSOON. If the story ever goes beyond a sequence of news stories then there could be an article, but right now this is a news story that nobody may care about in coming years. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you serious? Nominating a well sourced article for AFD without even bothering to elaborate on your reasoning? Please show some respect to other editors' work, even if you think it's worthless. -Zanhe (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the OP's statement contains a rational, as do all of the various comments favoring either a merge or deletion. However, I am not seeing much of a WP:PAG based rational for keeping the page on your comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may not be significant like the elections or the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings as it is just a usual diplomatic issue. I think there is always some sort of rift between these countries for a long time. One thing this issue could be permanent as the Swiss court recently ruled out that LTTE is not a criminal organization, which could be a turning point.https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/swiss-court-rules-ltte-not-criminal-organisation 111.223.162.6 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the diplomatic relations affected by this abduction. Not much sources really say like this. There us a deadline for the victim to leave the country after 9 December 2019. Can we change this title as Sri Lankan hostage crisis similar to what I have studied in history about Iran hostage crisis. 175.157.109.171 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Ad Orientem, this fails the WP:10YT test. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sri Lanka–Switzerland relations. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No apparent consensus to delete; try a re-list to see if a later desire lean to Merge (over Keep) persists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 22 mostly high quality sources passes WP:SIGCOV. WP:NTEMP. No continued coverage needed. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Summerise it and merge with the Swiss relations page. - UmdP 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator I take the blame for creating this article and I agree with WP:NOTNEWS policy. However I feel sources such as BBC and New York Times continue to give updates regarding the incident but not on regular basis. The local Sri Lankan sources are regularly updating the incident. The officials have also revealed the name of the woman staff Gania Banister Francis which was confirmed by Swiss authorities. Actually she was initially considered as the aggrieved party and then she is accused of playing a blunder regarding the incident and has also been arrested. In this case, both the victim and accuser is the same person (Gania Banister Francis). I think it is better to merge the article and I take the responsibility for creating article like this. Abishe (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly both notable and has ongoing coverage. I would go along with either a keep or a merge. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we need more useful information on Wikipedia, not less. This is an ongoing story with several hooks. Switzerland wants to deal with the past [1] and is doubting the rule of law in Sri Lanka [2]. Newly-elected president Rajapaksa does not want to deal with the past [3] and takes the incident personally [4]. Wakari07 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never thought this Afd would go so long. The embassy issue is a serious legal case. The incident is actually notable as it is still regarded as ongoing legal case in Sri Lanka. Prior to this case, the bond between Sri Lanka and Switzerland have always been controversial ever since the end of 2009 civil war. Tamils have seeked asylum mostly in Switzerland and this has caused rifts between the two nations. I also remember there was another pending legal case on Murder of Yvonne Jonsson who was a Swedish young girl who was murdered in Royal Park, Colombo in 2005. The former President gave pardon to the perpetrator and it caused some sort of issues between Sweden and Sri Lanka. The Swiss embassy case is somewhat similar this. Some reports allege it was Swiss authorities who used Gania Banister Francis as a propaganda to further aggravate the situation between two nations. I don't know who really started this issue first and I contributed to this article by maintaining WP:NPOV. But I am facing severe backlash and criticsms from the outsiders for being the author of this article. I also might face legal consequences for creating article of this kind. This case might not be much covered like the Impeachment of Donald Trump, death penalty of Pervez Musharraf or the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests but still I assure Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy is very much notable. Its up to the admins to decide upon this. Abishe (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be salvaged per WP:V, and it wouldn't be small game, to Sri Lanka–Switzerland relations, per nomination. Editors demanding more text from the nominator confuse substance with quantity: Invoking a specific policy can be enough; there's no obligation for elaboration. The article's subject fails the criteria for a stand-alone Wikipedia entry per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, as even the article's creator acknowldeged above. Let's think WP:10YT but meanwhile let's merge. -The Gnome (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sri Lanka–Switzerland relations. The information can fully remain in the encyclopedia that way, but in the context of the more important subject of the relationship between the countries. BD2412 T 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Self merge I have come to this conclusion after looking at the recent proposals made by fellow editors ever since relisting the discussion. I myself came to this conclusion in order to give my fullest cooperation to the admins. I have created articles such as 2019 cyberattacks on Sri Lanka, 2019 railway strike in Sri Lanka which are even smaller than this article. I prefer this to be merged with 2019 in Sri Lanka over Sri Lanka–Switzerland relations because the list article is much bigger than the latter. I thought instead of reaching No concensus result its better to go with either 'Merge or Keep. The discussion has caused dilemma and I leave it to admins to take final decision. Here after I feel no point in engaging myself into this discussion. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this serious overview article [5] in the SL Sunday Times, according to a diplomatic source, European Union envoys back the Swiss position. The victim-turned-suspect is still in prison. Wakari07 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable subject and any POV issues can be addressed without deletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural_mandate

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

Lacks NPOV, lacks notability LordDimwit (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:28 is the commonly-known "Be fruitful and multiply..." verse. However, this page, which is what Wikipedia sends you to if you look up "be fruitful and multiply" and is the first Google result from Wikipedia, is concerned primarily with the Reformed Tradition notion of the "cultural mandate".

While the concept of the "cultural mandate" exists within certain strains of Christianity, it is not synonymous with "Be fruitful and multiply..." and therefore the title of the page itself is inaccurate and in violation of NPOV. I would argue that the concept of "cultural mandate" is not worth an article on its own; it can be folded into Dominion theology.

As for the verse in Genesis itself, I think its sufficiently discussed in the article on the Genesis creation narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordDimwit (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Lacking NPOV isn't a valid reason for implemneting an AfD. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. – The Grid (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the article lacks NPOV: it's also not worthy of its own page (sorry, I don't know what the term is for that..."lacks notability"?). See my reasoning above: the topics covered by the page are better covered by the existing articles on Dominion theology and Genesis creation narrative.

And additionally, the only way to fix the lack of NPOV on the page is to delete it and/or make it such that the link for "Be fruitful and multiply" doesn't point to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordDimwit (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must apologise: this article has been on my to-do list for years, and I've never got around to expanding it. It's certainly a notable concept (though within the Reformed tradition) and much bigger than dominion theology. Of course, "Be fruitful and multiply" could still be an article by itself, and could also discuss the Quiverfull movement. St Anselm (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG, and it's a relevant and notable topic in Christian theology. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable concept but perhaps the title could be changed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is essentially a commentary on one verse of the Bible. "Be fruitful and multiply" would be a better title. There is probably a lot of scope for giving the views of other Christian (and Jewish) commentators on it, but this is not an article pushing one POV in a way that cannot be remedied. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adster Creative

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

non-notable company. Everything is sourced to press releases and announcements and I can find no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no valid reliable sources here to get it over WP:CORPDEPTH — out of 15 footnotes, literally the only one that's actually a reliable or notability-supporting publication at all just features a brief soundbite from the president of the company as one of 13 soundbite-givers in an "answer a generic business question" column which is not a substantive article about the company, and all of the other sources are primary sources that are not valid support for notability at all — but the article makes no notability claim strong enough to exempt it from having to have much better sourcing than this, either. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Intelligence Journal

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

Article PRODded with reason "Unsourced since 2008, website is dead. Cannot find an ISSN." Article dePRODded with reason "ISSN 0883072X - rm prod". Besides the ISSN, three references were added. The fist one is a single reference to an article published in this journal, but a smattering of such citations is nothing out of the ordinary and to be expected. The second is the list of issues of this journal on JSTOR, supporting the age of the journal. The third is the most substantial one and is a single sentence in a book, listing 4 journals that "contain superb source materials on intelligence". None of the sources provide any in depth discussion of the subject. Apart from that, the journal is not indexed in any database (selective or not; see here]). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This looks like a WP:BEFORE fail on WP:NJournals. Easily passes Criterion 2 with over 1400 hits returned on Google Scholar. Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree. Clicking on the link to GScholar renders results to different journals, plus some results to this journal, but most articles have been cited only a handful of times. As I said above, a smattering of citations is to be expected, but 1400 would not necessarily even make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. In short, I do not think that this meets NJournals#2. (And note that any journal that gets cited even at minimal rates will be picked up by the Science Citation Index or Scopus. Not being in either one of those is a good indication that the number of cites this journal has gotten over its 40-year history is not important). --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most cited article from this journal I'm seeing on GScholar has 34 cites. I see 5 articles total with over 10 cites. Non-existent general coverage doesn't help, either, and the article really milks its claims from nothing. The "superb source materials" claim is made as if it's a statement of fact, when it was a passing opinion dropped about a list of other journals, as mentioned in the nom. The other sources basically prove the thing exists and nothing more. Skeletor3000 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to publisher ideally, but since that's not there, ehhhh... is more or less how I feel about this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Night Club

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

There is a lack of credible and verifiable sources on the subject matter. Articles published online that discuss Mid Night often repeat information that was previously included in the Wikipedia article, which themselves were the result of speculation. --774san (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of significant coverage, possible BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversight.ai

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

Highly promotional article about a company which lacks WP:SIGCOV. Everything aside from one piece are press releases and funding announcements Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have pruned this significantly since the nomination; cutting most (or all) of the promotional content, irrelevant or non-reliable sources, and meaningless buzzwords. I've added information from two additional sources. There is only one press release currently cited. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest are just local pieces and funding announcements, so WP:MILL applies to those imo. Praxidicae (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no SIGCOV from quality RS on this company. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, a company with under $1m in revenues is just TOOSOON (a basic 7/11 store has a higher revenue base). Tiny companies like this who have Wikipedia articles have pieces in the WSJ or other material RS because, although small, there is deep interest in their technology. This firm does not yet have that. Their WP article would be the biggest plank in their notability, and it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk)
Delete per above - this is yet another instance of undisclosed paid-for spam that we see too often. I've blocked the creator for WP:UPE. MER-C 16:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for that MER-C; I forgot to mention the UPE aspect - we need a bot that scans for new users who make about 50 random small edits pver a few weeks, and then drop a +5,000 charachter fully completed article in one go from their sandbox; I see that quite often doing WP:NPP, and most seem like WP:UPE cases to me. Britishfinance (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keishi Yonao

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

Article only has one source, and even then I couldn't find that many sources (other than a VGM Online interview) that establishes his notability. DrDevilFX (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yadigar Görür

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

Football player and coach who fails GNG. I'm inclined to believe that his playing career as seen in the article is a hoax as I couldn't find any sources or stats of his stints with most of these clubs except for SV Prüm. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is certainly not hoax. I've expanded briefly adding a reliable source. CeeGee 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must say I am confused, one citation spells his name as Yadigar Goru yet, the return results on google for that is terrible. However this name written here, he played 8 times for SV Prum per this [6] and there is other stuff [7]. It's possible he travelled around a bit was at those clubs but didn't really play. But from my searches don't see enough for WP:GNG and there doesn't appear evidence towards an WP:NFOOTY pass. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is not found in football databases, which he would be if he played for the likes of Strasbourg and Fenerbahce. Ping me if you find sources that back that up. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TNT applies. No objection to recreating with proper sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinobots

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

This fails to establish notability. Sources from the previous AfD were mostly just pop-culture articles about their role in a then upcoming movie. The only real significant real world information in the lead doesn't have a proper source. Autobots and Decepticons surely must be notable, but I don't believe this meets that threshold. TTN (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what makes Playthings magazine not a proper source? It is publication that ran for over 100 years independently and continues to do so in a more compact form after business merger decisions, and it is still accessible for the most part. -2pou (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not proper as in it doesn’t list the actual publication by the company or any indication that those toys in particular are even related to this topic. All it says is Transformers in general for that year, which certainly released more than just one set of toys in an entire year. TTN (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You were trying to say that the claim in the article is not being sourced properly. It reads as if you are claiming Playthings magazine is not a proper source to be used by people in the first place.
That said, I'm not sure that this is accurate. The publication is Playthings, and the publisher at the time was Geyer-McAllister Publications. We can add publisher=Geyer-McAllister Publications to the cs1 citation template, though this is not a comonly used, nor required attribute. You don't often see "{cite magazine |magazine=The New Yorker | publisher=Condé Nast...}", but I guess a full publisher citation can be added. The exact publication seems to be listed as the December 1985 issue. I am not familiar with the work, but some periodicals only use a Date and not a Volume/Issue number. Either way, Volume/Issue numbers are not required to track down the issue when a date is provided. The title of the article itself is "Transformers named top toy of '85; buyers representing 3,500 stores cast votes for best-sellers in Playthings survey". The lead seems to be claiming that within that article, the Dinobots are discussed somewhere, not necessarily THE top, but somewhere in there. I'd be willing to bet Barbie is somewhere in that article as well. This can be confusing since Dinobots are Transformers, and Transformers topped the list and are used in the article name. It could be read as a quote instead of an article title name, but journal/magazine article/paper names are in quotes when using a cs1 template, and they are not italicized. Now, I could see an interpretation where someone just took that article name and put it into any transformers related article, which wouldn't apply to Dinobots specifcally, but I have to assume good faith that the editor that added the information actually read material related to Dinobots within. I'm not willing to travel to the aforementioned museum in New York to find the issue in question to prove or disprove this, though.
All that is just about one particular source, which won't establish notability by itself, but per WP:AGF I don't think it should be discounted. I just saw what I thought was a magazine being discredited and started digging. We'll see if more are brought to light, though. -2pou (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformers articles had a huge problem with improperly used sources to basically try to look important, so I wouldn't automatically AGF. There was a real problem several years ago with vehement defense of poor articles and the implementation of said sources to try to keep them. As for this source, I think that quote is a description of what the source is supposed to be rather than a name of an article. Putting the text into Google, all that comes up is Transformers Wikipedia and Fandom stuff. I feel like that text would be out there somewhere if it came directly from a publication. TTN (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the G1 part into Autobots, minus the long and detailed plot descriptions. JIP | Talk 19:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In between the film (and associated commentary), the games and the toys these things grind their way over the notability standards.©Geni (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Possibly notable, but this is a terrible article. I know the option of "blowing it up and starting over" isn't a policy position, but... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete as having literally nothing of enyclopedic value. Whether or not there is potential for a notable article at that name, it needs to be rewritten in its entirety regardless._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources found by Geni are good (I also found this but it is so-so), through a lot of content needs pruning, so overall I am on the same boat as J Milburn, but I'd lean to keep (preserve edit history, prune most of the content that's fancruft/primary info on toys). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found above. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
??? I hate these articles! Easy when there's no notability, but this one has clear notability established above, plus discussion in scholarly works about insubordination but ultimately following leadership (there's a viewable copy out there, but marked not for distribution, so I won't)... and more from Kotaku and Gizmodo and Collider showing their popularity. Even Mother Nature Network? (that one is brief and arguably not very notable, but I include it to show my amazement at the breadth of who bothers discussing them).
I remember loving the Dinobots, too, but this article is so, SO BAD! I really want to recommend TNT, but Piotrus has a point about preserving the edit history. The problem is that I don't know who will take the initiative to actually do the pruning... -2pou (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are just minor pop culture pieces without anything to actually say on the topic. As I said, it did get attention for their roles in the one movie, but that's a commonplace style of news reporting in the last decade to pick up Google hits. It doesn't help display anything more than a temporary interest based on search trends. TTN (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hear 2pou. I would be open to supporting keeping this article if I believed anyone was doing/was going to start doing the work to make it passable. My experience with Transformers articles, however, is that they languish indefinitely with maintenance templates with people tweaking the plot summaries. I've seen cases of AfDs closed as a merge that never even got merged as someone removed the "this needs to be merged" template or just reverted to an earlier version of the article after the fact. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross Grammar School

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

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we stopped keeping articles on schools just because they exist. We need to show actual impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the sentiment but agree with your conclusion. Last heard of in 2014 and no proof that it is within scope age wise. ClemRutter (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Murtaza School

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

Few mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly run of the mil school, under 40 years old. Article has unsourced trivia and/or conclusions that would be difficult to source. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sterling Foundation School

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

Defunct, non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of broken links and no references. I found nothing more modern that 2012. ClemRutter (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar Public School

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

Small, non-notable school. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every school is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced page filled with trivia and conclusions, about a small school less than 40 years old and of uncertain control. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in this article conveys notability Uhooep (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation School

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

Poorly written. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable about this school. Uhooep (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Alps giant salamander

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

Fails GNG. WP:BEFORE search failed to return any reliable sources.

Current sourcing is also unreliable:

Coleman and Fortean Times are fringe sources
California Herps appears to be a serious reptile guide, however the "Trinity Alps giant salamander" entry is supported only by unreliable Cryptid Compendiums along with a circular Wikipedia reference. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as it hasn't been described or documented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Myers, George S. (8 June 1951). "Asiatic Giant Salamander Caught in the Sacramento River, and an Exotic Skink near San Francisco". Copeia. 2: 179–180. and unpublished "The Great Salamander Hunt" in the papers of Bernard R. Hubbard, though not mentioned in this biography.—eric 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other references to Copeia are probably taken out of context. Not mentioned in the Hubbard's biography and not clear he was actually looking for this, but i like that quote from him.—eric 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not received any main stream coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even side stream coverage. Per the reasoning of KofA and eric; doesn't appear to be a described species or meet GNG. – Levivich 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RS coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FRINGE specifically and basic verification generally. Either made up in a day or a hoax. We do not publish what is essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Foster

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor character failing GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Recurring cast for failing PLOT. List of Battlestar Galactica characters doesn't even mention her, meaning even her in-universe importance is small. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar (fictional spacecraft)

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

This fails WP:GNG, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft that fails GNG. There is already Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft), making this redundant, and the other battlestars are far less notable than the Galactica itself, though even that may not be notable enough for an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak selective-merge/redirect to Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft), where the concept may also be explained. But should it? The potential merge target already says in the lead all a general readerm needs to know about Battlestars, and there is one sourced sentence about Zoic Studios (production sentence) from the Battlestar article not present in the merge target (which may not need a stand-alone article itself). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the current state, fails GNG and I don't see sources beyond reviews of some merchandise or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft). As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon (Battlestar Galactica)

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

This fails WP:GNG, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tough one to unpack, but this is what needs to be done. Move this article to Cylon as the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC while moving the disambiguation page to Cylon (disambiguation). Merge the other 2 Cylon articles into it (this page is the oldest of them), while heavily pruning them for cruft. Cylons are definitely notable (see also: Cylons in America: Critical Studies in Battlestar Galactica), but the two separate articles are rather unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but selective-merge Cylon (1978) and Cylon (reimagining) into this. The concept is clearly notable enough to pass AfD per Zxcvbnm, but all the WP:Content forking is unnecessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable beyond mere plot regurgitation. As ZXCVBNM points out, there have been critical analyses not just about Battlestar Galactica as a whole, but about the Cylons specifically. I'll add another to the list: [8] That said, merging the content forks would be wise. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 15:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm. I agree that this seems to be the primary topic so a move would make sense to me, but that is a different conversation entirely. I also agree with Sgeureka as I think it would be beneficial to somehow have one comprehensive article on the Cylons from both shows. I am not entirely sure how it would work, but it is a good idea at the very least. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge three entries into one per sgeureka. It's sad that when there's a ton of fancruft on minor and clearly non-notable topics this one is in such a dire state. Merge all three entries, yes, but I think the topic of Cylons is notable. Here are some sources which seem to discuss this fictional race in depth: [9], [10], [11], [12], and somewhat less in-depth but still worth noting [13]. Most fictional races are not notable. This one very much is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge as above. Clear primary topic. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been presented that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mee

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

I considered nominating this for CSD WP:G4, but the previous AFD was almost ten years ago, and I have no idea if the article content is substantially similar, so perhaps it's better to bring this to AFD for consideration. I essentially agree with the previous nominator, and I don't believe anything has changed since then. This is a borderline WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP fail, with the obvious caveat that she is known for two things. However, it is still really no more than a case of someone having 15 minutes of fame for one trivial curiosity, and then briefly raising to public consciousness again because an otherwise fairly unremarkable robbery-murder happened to be committed by someone who had previously been a media curiosity, and the press can never resist that. Hug^syrup 11:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is easily met with multiple WP:RSs. The nominator ignores our guidelines for WP:N and WP:V and makes a vague wave at a WP:BLP1E claim which clearly does not apply...I am sure the nominator knows that WP:BLP2E does not exist. The rationale seems to be someone didn't like it before, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. FYI: The subject was world famous for her medical condition, and then again world famous for her crime. We keep articles which meet the heavier burden of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. See: Juli Briskman AfD which I argued against keeping - I was wrong. Jennifer Mee has been in the news more than 10 years with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. She has received international coverage in reliable sources. This is an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ WP:GNG is easily met. Indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (2nd nomination) establish that yet again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does the 2nd nomination establish "yet again" that GNG is easily met, when the 2nd nomination ended in delete consensus? – Levivich 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I improved sourcing — no longer the article it was when first nominated for deletion — and WP:Hey applies. Given the present sourcing, WP:Notability established by multiple WP:RS. Q.E.D., WP:Before was clearly violated; you are supposed to do a search, and nominate ONLY when the article is unsalvageable. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper WP:I don't like it is no justification for this time waster. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep for reasons set forth above. User:Hugsyrup 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. For example, here's another source published by the Harvard University Press. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's not SNOW – Pardon me for saying so, but the four keep !votes above should be tossed, and I'm happy to elaborate on that on my talk page. Here's a real keep !vote, one with sources: the article subject meets WP:BASIC per St Petersburg Times via Chicago Tribune 2007, AFP via NYT 2007, NYT 2010, The Telegraph (UK) 2010, ABA Journal 2010, ABA Journal 2013, AP via People 2013 [14], and One Breath Away, a 448-page true crime book written by M. William Phelps and published by Kensington Books in 2016. The 2nd nomination resulted in delete, but it was written in 2010, and we now have a number of new RSes with which to write an article, including the full-length book. – Levivich 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Levivich It is nice that you voted "!keep". I appreciate your research. You proved what we knew: that there was no compliance with WP:Before.
However, your gratuitous slap is unwelcome. unbecoming, unhelpful, uncivil and wrong. Keep your views about other editors's votes to yourself. I, for one, would never disparage your conduct or vote. I WP:AGF, which is something that you should reacquaint yourself.
That being said, it would be nice if you actually added to the article (these sources would help), and didn't just drive by and flag wave sources at the AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a comment on the content. If, like me, you were thinking that parts of the article seemed to be copied and pasted without regard for flow, punctuation, etc, Earwig says: you're right! I've removed or rewritten the copy/pastes that I spotted, and I have placed an appropriate user warning, but if you spot more, please follow WP:C and do what's needed to keep us in line with our copyright policies. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is about fostering the community of editors and building the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 7&6=thirteen. All of us volunteering our time to build an encyclopedia ...and some here for the friction. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found proving this passes the general notability guidelines. She got coverage for being hiccup girl, then for her crime. Dream Focus 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the minimum requirements for WP:ANYBIO. Also thanking the nominator for bringing this here, however it turns out, as they have allowed us to establish a consensus one way or the other, an opportunity which would have been lost if they had taken the "easy option" and tagged G4. I also note that the only editors who actually (in the vernacular) "toss" !votes are the closing admin; yet, when they do, they studiously avoid using loaded, pergorative terms such as that :) ——SN 54129 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Subject has received plenty of third party media attention.BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Trux Extreme: Offroad Edition

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG because there is no WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Apart from IGN review, I wasn't able to find anything else in my searches. The last AfD mentioned Jeuxvideo and Gry, but both are just game listings on those sites. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another shovelware game from Data Design Interactive with no discernible notability. Note, though, that GNG and SIGCOV refer to the same guideline. Lordtobi (✉) 12:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The IGN review already included seems to be the only actual full review on the game. Searching for sources beyond that turns up nothing but passing mentions. The single source alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. As neither the developer or publisher have their own articles, there are also no real logical places to redirect this to, either. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crash: A Mother, A Son, and the Journey from Grief to Gratitude

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

over detailed plot summary of non notable book; no encyclopedic content, just sentimentalism and advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure if this article is trying to be about the book or the author (who may be wikinotable for their own standalone?), anyway, there are some reviews on Crash ie. HuffPost - here, The Herald News - here (although both reader-contributed?), Publishers Weekly (here), and Booklist (here), appears on a PW iBooks US Bestseller List, although some editors may say that this is enough to technically meet WP:NBOOK i reckon it needs some more. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) HuffPo (RSP entry) contributors are unreliable. Booklist and PW are trade publications (routine coverage). No additional reviews from the publisher's site. No acceptable redirect targets. czar 02:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews from Publishers Weekly and Booklist absolutely do count for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. Haukur (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose that we write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic on the basis of those two publications? (Also do you know how many thousands of books would fall into the same permastub criteria if that where the bar was set?) czar 00:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of books are certainly notable but I wouldn't claim to know how many. It might be interesting to do a Fermi estimate at some point. But note that whatever the number is, the number of non-notable books is far higher. Even books by notable authors from established publishers often fail to get two independent reviews. It's true that for books (or other topics) that only barely meet our notability criteria, we are often only in a position to write a short article. Maybe a couple of paragraphs summarizing the book's contents and one paragraph summarizing a couple of reviews. But short articles can still be quite useful. In some cases, of course, we can merge to series or author articles if we feel readers are better served that way. Haukur (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have both of these paywalled "reviews" in front of me and they're each a single paragraph, i.e., minimal actual review and 90% synopsis. I can't see how this can be the basis for writing an article nevertheless asserting notability. In my experience, this is par for PW and Booklist, which are used for librarians to make purchase orders (trade publications), not to assess literary merit, hence why I called this coverage routine. czar 08:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Czar. A book should have more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage in trade publications that cover every book. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Livesay

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

There is probably too much detail here for a WP:CSD, however, as you sift through the refs there is no quality RS of which he is the main subject. A WP:BEFORE reveals no SIGCOV from any RS where he is the main subject. All references to him are from online blogs/paid-speaker websites (he is a motivitional speaker), which are not suitable RS for Wikipedia. The BLP also has a strong PROMO feel to it. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaned up PROMO language. Was under the impression that business mags. news sources, & other books with SIGCOV (Forbes, KTLA, Yahoo!Finance, Inc. Mag, Dealstorming) were quality RS in addition to verifying pub. of author's own books through Amazon. On the find sources links through google, the RS previously used in the article appear as top results. What else should be done? Ufoshowlloao (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2019 (PST)

The Forbes article is part of the "Forbes Paid Program" (e.g. not independent); YahooFinance is not RS; the author having books on Amazon that no decent, never mind high-quality, RS wants to do a full review of, does not add to GNG. The RS in this article are not Wikipedia RS - there is no high-quality or even decent quality RS that has done a pice specifically on him. All we have are blogs/paid-speaker blogs etc. We don't even have a single major interview/profile piece on this subject from a full/proper RS, and for a BLP, we really need WP:THREE. A Wikipedia article would be the biggest part of his notability, whereas, it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no actual substantial sourcing for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are any of these links considered RS?:

1. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2019/november-2019/building-practice-3-secrets-winning-legal-beauty-contest

2. https://ktla.com/2019/10/21/author-and-storytelling-expert-john-livesay-on-how-to-go-from-invisible-to-irresistible/

3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettpower/2019/11/21/7-books-that-will-prepare-your-business-for-black-friday-and-cyber-monday-sales-success/#33d9d10179d4

4. https://www.inc.com/matt-haber/founder-sales-strategy-storytelling-john-livesay.html

5. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054298/6-things-you-should-do-when-you-give-your-two-week-notice

6. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/280827

Ufoshowlloao (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2019 (PST)

1. No. This is an article by the BLP subject, so is not independent.

2. No. This is a local news network, not a proper RS for an encyclopedia; also not about him but advice from his book.

3. No. This is not about him but 7 different motivational books; and per comments above is from Forbes "paid program" (i.e. the article is marked with Forbes and/or the author may earn a commission on sales made from links on this page); not something that can be used in an encyclopedia.

4. Not really. Inc is closer to an RS (but not a full RS); however, it is not about him, but just some advice per WP:MILL activity in his business.

5. Not really. The article is from LearnVest (a financial planning software company, and not an RS for a motivational speaker BLP); is not a piece on him, but is him giving advice in a 7-minute read section (e.g. is it a WP:MILL piece for a promotional/motivational speaker)

6. This is not an RS, and even within the website, it is from an author who is CEO and Founder of ReadersLegacy.com, Author, Speaker and Publishing Industry Advocate, and has the caveat of Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own – E.g. not even editorial oversite. Again, not RS for a BLP but just more WP:MILL in the promotional/motivational speaking industry.

Sorry, but again, there is no material RS who wants to do a proper piece on this subject as a notable person; therefore, why would Wikipedia? Step back from this and ask yourself, is there even a single material RS who considers John Livesey notable enough to do a piece on him as the subject? I can't find any? Sorry about that. Britishfinance (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for your time reviewing the article & helping me to understand your reasoning and the proper criteria for RS. Really think this has helped me become a more knowledgable Wiki contributor. Ufohsowlloao (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2019 (PCT)

My pleasure Ufosholloao, and best of luck. Thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He essentially wrote op-eds and puff pieces for various notable publications, but that does not make him automatically notable. The page is worded so poorly that it has a BLP violation, implying he is practicing law without a license. I'm sorry for the new editor, but it appears to be written as an essay, not an article -- too much passive voice, and that contributes to the weird confusion about who is this person. If you do find significant coverage about him, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brunello Rosa

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

First, the notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. This article is a self-promotional page, please verify the content. eg. “In September 2017 he co-founded, with renowned economist Nouriel Roubini, Rosa&Roubini Associates, an independent consultancy firm, in which he serves as CEO and head of research“. There is a substantial difference between self-promotion and being a public figure. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and cannot be used for self promoting professional activities. The article is just the personal page of the corporate website of the company Mr. Rosa runs. Please check https://rosa-roubini-associates.com/brunello-rosa. Second, the article is poorly sourced and it's self referential it doesn't provide a neutral point of view. Furthermore, the article claims that Mr Rosa is fellow at the systemic risk centre at LSE, but it is not possible to verify it http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/people. Mr Rosa can ask the universities - where he allegedly claims to work - to host his personal page and can always contributes to the development of wikipedia pages on economy. In conclusion, this page is a self-promotional biography based on self-promotional and self-published sources. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and cannot be used for self promoting professional activities. I propose to delete the biography of this person is not encyclopedic and does not respect wikipedia standards. Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the article to make sure it is respecting wiki policy, fairly written and properly sourced? Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but he appears not to be an academic economist, his scholarly publications in economics are minimal and largely uncited, and so WP:PROF seems out of the question and we are left with WP:GNG. It is difficult to discern from the sourcing of the article (where nothing is a footnote and everything is an external link) but most sources seem to be by him not about him, and the rest are spammy press-release journalism rather than in-depth stories about him written and published by others. Searching Google News for his name largely confirmed this picture. So I don't see a pass of WP:GNG, but maybe it is buried under the unsourced detail and bad sources of the existing article? Even if so, WP:TNT applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the nominator has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Nevertheless I think the AfD should continue in good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's notability, the article certainly doesn't make the case for it. Blow it up. Comment that the nominator seems to have been blocked for leaving a delete vote (now reverted) on this page while logged out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Bible

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

Non notable actor failing WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR Celestina007 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gondor#Heraldry and heirlooms which has a full paragraph on this fictional element. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Tree of Gondor

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

The symbol is not unknown, it has inspired some secondary fictional works, etc., but I can't find any sources suggesting it has been analyzed or studied otherwise. As it is, fails WP:GNG/NFICITON/pure PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough 3rd party analysis to justify a stand alone article on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uproot the tree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Heraldry and heirlooms The White Tree of Gondor has no notability outside of its use as a symbol by a fictional state. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gondor. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor#Heraldry and heirlooms. Its covered sufficiently there already, and could be used as a redirect as a plausible search term. As its already covered in the target article, and there is no information here using any sort of citations from reliable, secondary sources, merging isn't necessary. As a side note, am I the only one that got a chuckle out of the fact that there is a genealogy chart for the tree's "family"? Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caritas (Angel)

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

Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. It's only mentioned in passing in the main article. Previous AfD in 2007 ended with keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious fancruft. Btw, User:sgeureka, I'd recommend using PROD on such articles first, AFD only if they are challenged. I successfully prodded a lot of articles of similar 'quality', so it does work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I actually tried to prod this, but it wouldn't work because of the previous AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete unambiguous advertising by non-notable person. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SABYNYC

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article is a singer and Dj who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Addison

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

Fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG, BEFORE fails to find anything better. Prod declined, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A plot-only character stub from 2007? Definitely a case for noncontroversial (soft) deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Winch

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

Non notable social media user who has not been covered with in-depth in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mutliple extremely passing mentions do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm currently neutral leaning toward delete, question for Celestina007: are you asserting that the "Here's What's Happening in the American Teenage Bedroom" NYT article doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV? (that article title, by the way, is clickbait if I've ever seen it....) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I strongly suspect that the article's creator is also the subject - the creator's username is "Zucc11cs," which sure looks like the Instagram handle of the subject, "Zuccccccccccc" ("Zucc with 11 Cs"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creffett For your first question I believe the article isn’t sufficient enough per WP:GNG I don’t see any WP:INDEPTH sigcov originating in the article & as per your second comment, I commend your intelligence there because I didn’t notice that before but as you have pointed it out it explains the heavy disruptive edits that Zucc11cs was engaged in earlier on a different article(which was eventually speedy deleted)where he repeatedly removed maintainance tags without addressing the issues and also wrongly removed speedy delete tags. I see now that the issue was a WP:COI all along.Celestina007 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions don't meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:TNT, and WP:SIGCOV. Even the Grey lady makes mistakes. There is some evidence that this is an undisclosed autobiography. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Angel (1999 TV series). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Investigations

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

Fictional organization from Buffyverse, no evidence of this passing NFICTION/GNG etc. Pure PLOT, BEFORE does not show anything that goes beyond it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angel (1999 TV series). There is no sourced content suitable for merging. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TV series. We shouldn't help the hopeless, but redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pylea

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

Buffyverse location, right now oure WP:PLOT sourced to WP:PRIMARY. BEFORE shows a few mentions in passing but I am not seeing any in-depth analysis. The book The Physics of the Buffyverse contains a few sentences about how laws of physics might differ in Pylea's universe, but I don't think that's sufficient (few sentences of analysis spread over few pages), and it's a single source anyway. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-effort in-univserse article on a plot device that's better covered in a fan wiki. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus I'm closing this as a procedural non-consensus. I would have done so much earlier had I sen this afd. It seems from the discussion and the sources available that the individual articles must be disccused separately--the evidence for notability seems strogner for some than for others, but I have no particular opinion of my own about any of them. I point out that according to [[WP:GNG, the existence of sources that meet the notability requirement does not necessarily mean there should be individual articles--a combination article can be a practical solution--such a combination article can be much more extensive than a mere list. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beaglier

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

All of these designer dog crossbreeds fail GNG. A couple of them are mentioned specifically in the 2007 New York Times Magazine story "The Modern Kennel Conundrum", but a mere acknowledgement that some F1 & F2 crossbred dogs are marketed under a portmanteau does not confer notability. Google shows up the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know about the other dogs, but Goldendoodle gets 58 million hits on Google. I would think that constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG. MartinezMD (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of unattributable information on all of the above, but sheer weight of non-RS Google hits does not constitute GNG. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty much all of these are poorly written and serve as outlets for people to dump their pet pictures, but I'm unsure if that would be another reason for deletion. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the trend, I want my dog on Wikipedia, I will create an article from hot air about it. Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete them all. Else, mention on list of cross-breeds. More of the possible 100,000 combinations that can be made with crossings from the 450+ FCI breeds. Be aware that many of these articles were started as a monument to somebody's dog that has passed away, with photos taken of that dog and placed in the articles, forever. William Harristalk 06:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per William Harris. Many, many possible crossbreeds. I thought Goldendoodle might be salvagable, but not with what I could find on Google, Google News, and Google scholar. For instance, Goldendoodle has many citations, but most are to either primary sources or sources of dubious quality (Kurt Vonnegut's personal letters as a source of information about dogs?). If one of these crossbreeds does become a well-documented breed, no prejudice against recreation. Hog Farm (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I just tagged Gerberian Shepsky for copyvio deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just when we thought that citing "thehappypuppysite.com" as a reliable source was bad enough....... William Harristalk 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I added it back to the list above (removed strikethrough) since the violating content was removed. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of dog crossbreeds provides sufficient information. I wasn't able to find good sources for significant coverage of the individual combos. The general concept of "designer crossbreeds" is notable, but it doesn't appear that any specific crossbreed is. (And Cavalryman, sorry for not cleaning up thoroughly when I removed the strikethrough, but fortunately you caught it - thanks) Schazjmd (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, thank you for the updates. I agree fully, the broader subject is notable, and the list when reliably sourced contains the main crosses. Cavalryman (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete all except Cockapoo, Goldendoodle, and Goldador, those three have had a lot more reliable sourcing and warrant individual scrutiny at AFD, at the very least - the rest are lacking in sufficient evidence of general notability. Fish+Karate 10:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, as a bundle of 10+ afds will require at least a couple of hours to carry out even a perfunctory search for possible sources ie. 1st 5 pages of gsearch, and did the nominator even consider redirects to List of dog crossbreeds as likely wikireader search terms? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong procedural keep all per Coolabahapple. Some of these are likely to be notable enough for their own pages, some are not. This can't be put through with a ~~lazy~~unwise mass-nomination. Bookscale (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no wish to impugn the two procedural keep !voters, but implicit in your comments is a presumption of bad faith in assuming due diligence has not be followed by me as nominator and those who have !voted delete (I take issue with the use of the word of lazy). Can you produce any RS to support the retention of any of the above? I have searched everywhere I know and cannot, to my surprise in some cases. The same due diligence would be applicable to seventeen separate nominations as is required (and has been carried out) in this joint nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - I don't have to produce reliable sources to support any of them - I'm saying the mass-nomination of multiple pages shouldn't have been done and the AfD should be closed on that procedural basis - I'm not arguing necessarily that any individual page is notable or not, just that the nomination is improper. You say you haven't found any sources - have you been to a university library and tried proper veterinary textbooks and the like that would discuss this sort of thing - that is much more likely to be where any reliable sources on dog breeds are to be found, rather than Google searching (for example). Bookscale (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've withdrawn the word "lazy", and said it was unwise. Bookscale (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that sufficient coverage provided by List of dog crossbreeds. Teraplane (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP should not be used as a promotional tool for "designers" and "wannabe breeds" that haven't met the minimum breed standards of notable breed registries and kennel clubs that keep track of parentage, conduct DNA testing, and can provide verifiability. I do have some reservations about the Cockapoo, not as a breed but as it relates to popularity...but then, famous doesn't qualify for a WP article on its own, and without a reputable breed registry keeping track of parentage and being able to verify that it's a purebred...well, WP may be unknowingly helping puppy mills and other types of scams by giving encyclopedic recognition to a breed that neither exists nor is verifiable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so I just looked at Maltipoo as I had a friend who had one. The article itself may not be the best sourced - are those dog sources reliable, especially petbreeds.com and dogtime.com? A news search for Maltipoo brought up heaps of articles as well, and there have been books written which specifically discuss the breed. Perhaps they're self-published, perhaps it's truly not notable, but I have some extreme reservations about deleting all of these at once given the amount of hits that come up. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick example of why WP should not be used as a marketing/promotional tool for designer crosses - cruel, not cute. This is the Maltipoo club and registry. Spend a bit of time reviewing the site and compare it to the reputable AKC or KC sites. Sadly, puppy mills are everywhere - it's the quackery and fringe of dog breeding. They sell on Craigs List, and all over the internet where scams run rampant. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how is our current Multipoo article at all promotional? I did see some news articles such as this which show you're correct, but I don't know why they wouldn't be added to the article instead of using it as grounds for deletion to help present a NPOV. I also did not come across the Tripod article as a potential source in my search. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question, SF. If you get a chance, see User:Atsme/sandbox. I think it addresses your question. Please feel free to contribute your ideas on the TP of that draft. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Really nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagle hound. If there is any soundly-sourced mention of any of these – as for example in the NYT article – it can either be used to create an entry in the List of dog crossbreeds (which urgently needs work, by the way), or be mentioned in the article(s) on one or both of the parent breeds. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beaglier, Cavoodle, Cockapoo, Goldador, Goldendoodle, Mal-shi, and Maltipoo.

I am taking no position for now on the remaining articles because I have not searched for sources for them. I commented below the relist about the 10 remaining articles. Modified by Cunard (talk) at 10:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am first presenting only the reliable sources for each topic. I then present the reliable sources with quotes.

For Beaglier:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 13: The Beagalier". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 104–109. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

For Cavoodle:

Hale, Rachael (2008). Dogs: 101 Adorable Breeds. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7407-7342-6. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
"Top 8 dog breeds for allergy sufferers". Better Homes and Gardens. 2018-01-28. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Moulton, Emily; Parri, Linda (2011-10-02). "Cavoodles of love". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

For Cockapoo:

Foley, Mary D. (2012). Cockapoo. Freehold: I-5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59378-713-4. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Owen, Ruth (2013). Cockapoos. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4488-7855-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Fogle, Bruce (2000) [1995]. The New Encyclopedia of The Dog (2 ed.). New York: DK. p. 383. ISBN 0-7894-6130-7. Retrieved 2019-12-14.

For Goldador:

Owen, Ruth (2015). Goldadors. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4777-7039-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 2: The Goldador". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 30–35. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

For Goldendoodle:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 5: The Goldendoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 52–59. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 605. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

For Mal-shi:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 11: The Maltese Shih Tzu". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 92–97. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

For Maltipoo:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 10: The Maltepo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 86–91. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Pickeral, Tamsin (2014). Unleashed. San Diego: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-62686-273-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

Sources for Beaglier, Cavoodle, Cockapoo, Goldador, Goldendoodle, Mal-shi, and Maltipoo and quotes

Keep Beaglier. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 13: The Beagalier". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 104–109. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  The Beagalier
  
  Name variations: Beaglier
  
  The Beagalier is a dog with lots of character and energy. It also has the attractive features of the two parent breeds, the Beagle and the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Bred for health and good temperament, the Beagalier is steadily acquiring a following.
  History of the Beagalier
  
  The Beagalier became particularly popular through crossbreeding programs in Australia during the 1990s and is still one of the crosses produced by major breeders. Apart from capitalizing on the existing affection for the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and the Beagle parent breeds, the breeders were looking for a healthy, energetic small dog with a less active scent drive than that of the Beagle.
  The book provides six pages of coverage about the Beagalier.
2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  Beagalier
  
  History/Evolution: A cross between a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and a Beagle, the Beagalier was first bred in Australi in the 1990s, focused on reducing the Beagle's scent-hunting drive and wandering tendencies. The crossbreed may have a positive effect on health problems associated with the Cavalier, including heart conditions and other issues related to the shortened face. The typical Beagalier has a good temperament and resembles both parent breeds.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Cavoodle. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Hale, Rachael (2008). Dogs: 101 Adorable Breeds. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7407-7342-6. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  92. Cavoodle
  
  Originating in Australia, the Cavoodle is a cross of pure Miniature or Toy Poodle with the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, producing a smaller version of the Cockapoo or Spoodle. The affectionate and sweet disposition of the Cavalier King Charles beautifully complements the Toy Poodle's qualities of extreme intelligence and loyalty. Bred as companion dogs, the Cavalier's laid-back and sociable qualities combined with those of the easily trained and responsive Poodle make the Cavoodle exceptionally well suited to family life. The cross has also seen the development of a healthier breed, with many of the genetic problems of the original breeds being greatly reduced. Easy to care for and extremely tolerant and gentle with children, these modern dogs are growing in popularity.
  The book then discusses the breed's appearance and color.
2. "Top 8 dog breeds for allergy sufferers". Better Homes and Gardens. 2018-01-28. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The article notes:
  8. Cavoodle
  
  The Cavapoo or Cavoodle is a hypoallergenic dog breed that hardly sheds or drools. They are a cross between a miniature or toy poodle and a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.
  In Australia in the late 1990s, this breed became highly popular with crossbreeding programs.
  They are even-tempered with Toy Cavoodles growing to between 28cm to 35cm at the shoulder as adults.
  Mini Cavoodles will grow to between 33cm to 45cm at the shoulder as adults.
  Note: While the breeds in this collection tend to be more allergy-friendly, no dog can be guaranteed not to cause any allergic reaction and individual pets will vary. Do not stop taking allergy medicine without speaking to your doctor.
3. Moulton, Emily; Parri, Linda (2011-10-02). "Cavoodles of love". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The article notes:
  IT'S called the cavoodle and it's about to become the most publicised dog breed in the nation, despite the price tag.
  The breed, a cavalier King Charles spaniel crossed with a miniature poodle, is tipped to soar in popularity after Prime Minister Julia Gillard revealed she would be a proud owner.
  The animal was a birthday gift from her partner, Tim Mathieson, and the PM will take delivery of her cavoodle puppy in just over a month.

Keep Cockapoo. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Foley, Mary D. (2012). Cockapoo. Freehold: I-5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59378-713-4. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
2. Owen, Ruth (2013). Cockapoos. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4488-7855-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
3. Fogle, Bruce (2000) [1995]. The New Encyclopedia of The Dog (2 ed.). New York: DK. p. 383. ISBN 0-7894-6130-7. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
  The book notes:
  The Cockerpooo — a cross between the American Cocker Spaniel and the Miniature Poodle — is growing in popularity. Like other breeds, the first dogs were the result of unplanned matings, but more recently, as numbers have increased, matings between Cockerpoos have become planned. The Poodle is evident, both in the face and coat texture, and in the personality of this new "breed." Like the Poodle, the Cockerpoo is an intent observer, not given to the hyperactive excesses of many American Cocker Spaniels. An added bonus is that the Cockerpoo has a much lower incidence of skin problems than the American Cocker.

Keep Goldador. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Owen, Ruth (2015). Goldadors. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4777-7039-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
2. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 2: The Goldador". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 30–35. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book provides six pages of coverage about the Goldador.

Keep Goldendoodle. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 5: The Goldendoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 52–59. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book provides eight pages of coverage about the Goldendoodle.
2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 605. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  Goldendoodle
  
  History/Evolution:
  The Goldendoodle is a relatively new mix, a cross between the Poodle and the Golden Retriever. Like the Labradoodle, the Goldendoodle may inherit the Poodle's low-shedding, low-dander coat. Bred in different sizes, depending on the size of Poodle, the Goldendoodle is a larger alternative to the Cockapoo. The cross is the product of two intelligent breeds and is an able working dog, serving as a guide dog, sniffer, and therapy dog.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Mal-shi. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 11: The Maltese Shih Tzu". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 92–97. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book provides six pages of coverage about the Mal-shi.
2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  Mal-Shi
  
  The Mal-Shi, also known as a Malti Tzu is hybrid created by crossing a purebred Maltese with a purebred Shih Tzu. Like most hybrids, they are not recognized by any major kennel club, but are becoming increasingly more popular and quite sought-after. The Mal-Shi has the characteristics of both breeds, often with the coloring of the Shih Tzu and the fluffy coat of the Maltese. They are playful little dogs, great with children, and energetic in nature. They are confident and loyal and like to make new acquaintances, both canine and human.
  The Mal-Shi owner must be committed to grooming their dog regularly, even twice a day in some cases, for its fluffy coat can become easily matted if neglected. However, there are advantages, as the Mal-Shi's coat is low-shedding making it a popular choice for those who may have allergies.
3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  Maltese Shih Tzu
  
  History/Evolution: A cross of two low-shedding, low-dander dogs — the Maltese and the Shih Tzu — the Maltese Shih Tzu was developed in Australia in the 1990s. Also known as the Mal-Shi or Malt-Tzu, this small crossbreed may be a good choice for people with allergies; the cross may also avoid the eye and breathing problems associated with the Shih Tzu's flattened face. With enough exercise, the Maltese Shih Tzu is content in an apartment situation.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Maltipoo. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 10: The Maltepo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 86–91. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book provides six pages of coverage about the Mal-shi.
2. Pickeral, Tamsin (2014). Unleashed. San Diego: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-62686-273-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  The adorable Maltipoo is a cross between a Maltese and a Toy or Miniature Poodle, and is an ideal companion for families who want to devote themselves to their dogs. The Maltipoo likes nothing better than being at the center of attention, and will settle for nothing less. These little, fluffy dogs are not happy being left alone and will bark. Sometimes Maltipoos take time to accept strangers, and can be aloof, but they are devoted and affectionate to people they know and trust. Similarly, they do not always accept other dogs at first, and time should be taken to properly socialize them. Despite their small size, Maltipoos like to get out and about and enjoy a good walk and a lively play session.
3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  The book notes:
  Maltepo
  
  History/Evolution: The Maltepoo (or Maltipoo or Moodle), a cross between the Maltese and the Poodle, adorns the arm of more than a few celebrities. The Maltepoo may inherit the low-shedding, low-dander coat of the Poodle, making the cross attractive for people with allergies. The diminutive dog can be a successful therapy dog, especially with the elderly. Responsible breeders are alert to health issues such as endocrine disorders, skin diseases, and eye disorders.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Cunard (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Let’s only nominate only one article at a time in AfD. Samboy (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally this would be close to a delete consensus, but the last few comments have brought up new information that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(17 articles were nominated for deletion. My previous comment was about the first seven articles. This comment is about the last 10 articles.)

Keep Morkie, Pekapoo, Puggle, Schnoodle, Yorkipoo, and Zuchon.

Redirect Sheepadoodle and Shih-poo to Poodle crossbreed#Types of poodle crossbreeds.

Delete Jackabee and Gerberian Shepsky.

I am first presenting only the reliable sources for each topic. I then present the reliable sources with quotes.

For Morkie:

Schwartz, Heather E.; Dewey, Tanya (2012). Shores, Lori (ed.). Morkie: A Cross Between a Maltese and a Yorkshire Terrier. North Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4296-7668-7. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Edison, Erin; Smith, Gail-Saunders (2015). Shores, Erika L. (ed.). You'll Love Morkies. North Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4914-0571-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Pekapoo:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 6: The Pekapoo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 60–65. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
Bonham, Margaret H. (2005). "Peekapoos (or Pekapoos) (Pekingese + Poodles)". The Complete Idiot's Guide to Designer Dogs. New York: Alpha Books. pp. 79–81. ISBN 978-1-59257-369-1. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Puggle:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 12: The Puggle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 98–103. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 435. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 607. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Schnoodle:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 4: The Schnoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 46–51. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 436. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 607. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Yorkipoo:

Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 9: The Yorkiepoo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 80–85. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 440. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 609. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Zuchon:

Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 444. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 608. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.

For Sheepadoodle:

Redirect Sheepadoodle to Poodle crossbreed#Types of poodle crossbreeds. I have not found significant coverage about the subject. Here is one source that verifies basic information about the dog breed:
1. Weird But True! 4: 300 Outrageous Facts. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Kids. 2018. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-4263-3110-7. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Old English sheepdog 4-poodle = sheepadoodle

For Shih-poo:

Redirect Shih-poo to Poodle crossbreed#Types of poodle crossbreeds. I have not found significant coverage about the subject. Here is one source that verifies basic information about the dog breed:
1. Choron, Sandra; Choron, Harry (2005). Planet Dog: A Doglopedia. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-618-51752-7. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Shih-Poo — Shih Tzu/Poodle

For Jackabee:

Delete. I have not found significant coverage about the subject.

For Gerberian Shepsky:

Delete. I have not found significant coverage about the subject.

Sources for Morkie, Pekapoo, Puggle, Schnoodle, Yorkipoo, and Zuchon and quotes

Keep Morkie. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Schwartz, Heather E.; Dewey, Tanya (2012). Shores, Lori (ed.). Morkie: A Cross Between a Maltese and a Yorkshire Terrier. North Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4296-7668-7. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  There is no guarantee that a Morkie will have all the desired traits from their parent breeds. Some Morkies have the pointy ears of a Yorkshire Terrier. Others have ears that hang down Maltese-style. However, most Morkies do look alike. They're small dogs like their parents. Their long, soft coats may be brown, tan, white, black, or a combination of colors. Most Morkies are smaller and lighter than a gallon of milk. They stand about 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 centimeters) tall and weight just 3 to 7 pounds (1.4 to 3.2 kg).
2. Edison, Erin; Smith, Gail-Saunders (2015). Shores, Erika L. (ed.). You'll Love Morkies. North Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4914-0571-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Little Morkies are designer dogs. Designer dogs are a mix of two dog breeds. The Maltese and the Yorkshire terrier make up a Morkie. Morkies can be full of energy. In this way, they are like Yorkshire terriers, or Yorkies. But Morkies also enjoy sitting on laps like Maltese do. You might spot Morkies anywhere. They're about the size of a football. Some owners carry their Morkies in purses.

Keep Pekapoo. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 6: The Pekapoo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 60–65. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  The book notes that the Pekapoo's name variations are: Peekapoo, Pekepoo, Pekeapoo, and Peke-a-poo.
2. Bonham, Margaret H. (2005). "Peekapoos (or Pekapoos) (Pekingese + Poodles)". The Complete Idiot's Guide to Designer Dogs. New York: Alpha Books. pp. 79–81. ISBN 978-1-59257-369-1. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes this in the table of contents:
  Peekapoos (or Pekapoos) (Pekingese + Poodles): page 79
  Breed characteristics: page 79
  Breed History: page 80
  Meet the Peekapoo: page 80
  Where to Find a Peekapoo: page 81
  The book notes:
  The Peekapoo is a fairly old crossbreed similar to the Cockapoo, and in fact, many breeders of Peekapoos tend to breed other small crosses as well. The Poodle genes in the Peekapoo tend to improve the health problems normally seen in brachycephalic dogs such as the Pekingese.
  Breed Characteristics Origin: United States, 1950s
  Coat: Open with wavy texture; low to medium shedding
  Low allergy: Yes
  Colors: Apricot, black, buff, chocolate, cream, red, silver, and white
  Grooming needed: High; needs regular clipping and daily brushing and combing

Keep Puggle. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 12: The Puggle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 98–103. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes that the Puggle's name variations are: Pugle, Chinese Begeule, and "Miniature Mastiffs".
2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 435. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Puggle
  
  The Puggle was created by mating a Pug and a Beagle, the resulting offspring being a small and appealing hybrid dog. While hybridization was already being practiced seriously, the first Puggles were bred in the 1980s in the United States. Due to its energetic nature and appealing appearance, the Puggle quickly gained popularity. So much so that, today, it is one of the most popular crossbreeds.
  The Puggle has a sturdy, thickset body, with drooping ears. The coat is smooth and is usually multi-colored in combination of fawn, tan, white, and black. Fawn Puggles often possess black faces.
  Puggles are good-tempered, affectionate dogs which make great companions. Like Beagles they have a good sense of smell and love sniffing expeditions in the countryside.
3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 607. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Puggle
  
  History/Evolution: A recent star in the world of crossbreeds, the Puggle is a cross between two popular breeds, the Pug and the Beagle. This sturdy dog with a distinctive face may inherit the Pug's good nature and the Beagle's longer snout, which may help to reduce the breathing problems often associated with the Pug's brachycephalic head. Urban dwellers attracted to the compact size of the Puggle need to provide it with plenty of exercise and attention.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Schnoodle. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 4: The Schnoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 46–51. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 436. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Schnoodle
  
  The Schnoodle is a cross, usually between the samller breeds of Schauzer, and a Poodle, although there is another hybbrid, the Giant Schnoodle, which is a large dog created when a Giant Schauzer is crossed with a Standard Poodle.
  Schnoodles usually possess the rough hair and body shape of a Schnauzer, or if they inherit more attributes of the Poodle parent, they are more likely to be finer-boned in stature and to have the curly coat of a Poodle. Schnoodle colors include, white, brown, black, gray, and apricot.
  Schnoodles have strong personalities: they are affectionate, intelligent, active and naturally protective. They are easy to train and often excel in obedience training. Their high intelligence, however, means that they require a structured lifestyle and plenty of exercise, and can suffer if left alone too often. Like many other Poodle crosses, while the cost quality can vary, Schnoodles are often sought by those allergic to dog hairs.
3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 607. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Schnoodle
  
  History/Evolution: A cross between the Schnauzer and the Poodle, the Schnoodle was developed in response to demand in the 1980s for Poodle mixes. Schnoodles vary in size and temperament, depending on the parents involved. Schnoodles may inherit the Poodle's coat and intelligence; health issues such as skin conditions, eye problems, and epilepsy may occur. Some breeders work with multigenerational lines, with the goal of developing the Schnoodle as a recognized breed.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Yorkipoo. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 9: The Yorkiepoo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 80–85. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes that the Yorkiepoo's name variation is: Yorkipoo.
2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 440. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Yorkiepoo
  
  The Yorkiepoo was first bred in the United States by creating a Yorkshire Terrier and a Miniature or Toy Poodle. Yorkiepoos tend to have smooth, silky coats which are often wavy. As with all hybrids, the coat may vary in texture to some degree, although Yorkiepoo costs are often relatively hypoallergenic, which means they can be suited to the homes of allergy sufferers, although this has not been proven scientifically.
  [three more paragraphs
3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 609. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Yorkiepoo
  
  History/Evolution: The Yorkiepoo (also Yorkipoo) has been bred for a decade or so, the result of a cross between the Yorkshire Terrier and the Toy or Miniature Poodle. Like other Poodle crosses, the Yorkiepoo may be lowshedding and is often soft and silky. The typical small size of the dog is appealing to older owners and people who live in apartments; keep in mind, however, that the Yorkiepoo is a lively dog who still needs exercise.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Keep Zuchon. Here are sources about the subject:
1. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 444. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Zuchon
  
  The Zuchon is a hybrid breed created by crossing a Bichon Frisé and a Shih Tzu. Although the Zuchon is relatively new, it has recently gained popularity in that, like many of the other hybrids, it is considered to have hypoallergenic qualities due to its low-shedding cost. Allergic reactions can nonetheless still occur.
  [three more paragraphs]
2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 608. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  The book notes:
  Shihchon
  
  History/Evolution: The Shihchon (also Bi-Tzu and Zuchon) is a cross between the Shih Tzu and the Bichon Frise. The Shihchon coat may have the low-shedding, low-dander qualities of the Bichon; it may also benefit from having fewer problems associated with the brachycephalic head of the Shih Tzu. The mix doesn't like to be alone and enjoys the company of humans, whether on a lap or on a neighborhood walk, making it an ideal companion for retirees.
  The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.

Cunard (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in general. WP:NEOLOGISM is the relevent policy requiring significant sustained useage, and I agree with what appears to be the current consensus that List of dog crossbreeds handles these generally non-notable cross-breeds fine. Cunard's listings above don't really convince me otherwise on those areas. As Fish+Karate said though, I do think Cockapoo, Goldendoodle, and Goldador could warrant having their own individual AfD instead (with no prejudice against the filer for filing these as all one). Those might be more likely to be redirects instead (e.g., golden lab already redirects to Labrador Retriever, and using goldador tries to bypass that, but individual AfD is the best place for that kind of focused cleanup. Overall though, encyclopedic articles would be sticking to mostly recognized breeds as one standard. Simply doing a cross and making up a name and having a few sources that are fairly indiscriminate WP:NOTCATALOGUE, does not meet notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not trying to be critical of your comment, but just wanted to note that AfD is not the place to clean up articles. AfD is for articles that don't meet notability standards. Bookscale (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a common mistake when people don't differentiate AfD itself and the deletion option. AfD can be a place for such cleanup. For deletion though, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP is true. That other shortcut link there saying AfD itself isn't for cleanup is a misnomer that often confuses people. There are plenty of other options at AfD besides just keep or delete. That's why we have options such as merge, redirect, transwikify, etc. at AfDs for cleaning up issues that fall outside of just the notability question such as redundancy or already being covered appropriately elswhere. There's a lot of cleanup being discussed here related to article titles and deletion, and that's a core part of AfD when questions of notability and layout come up but deletion isn't the best option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEOLOGISM says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term ." WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply to 13 of the dog breeds nominated for deletion because there are reliable secondary sources about the term and concept. A number of those dog breeds even have entire chapters or entire books written about them. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can't cherry-pick just that and have to go by the spirit of that essay too. Remember that we're still lacking significant secondary coverage of those new compounds that NEOLOGISM describes. That higher-tier sources such as the AKC and other naming organizations aren't formally recognizing the names is a huge red flag on the neologism front. With such a disparity (i.e, WP:DUE, it doesn't really matter if someone can find a handful of books or a chapter. If a cross-breed isn't formally recognized, there's already a framework in articles of current breeds (or the list article) for discussing cross-bred traits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've already voted keep all on procedural grounds because the amount of source material required to properly evaluate all of these articles is ridiculously large, but I'd also be now inclined to support and keep the articles where Cunard has very helpfully found sources, for the reasons suggested. Bookscale (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just an IP, so my vote wouldn't matter in any case... But I want to point out that a lot of people are referring to "recognized breeds" in terms of kennel clubs, so you're basically saying Wikipedia should endorse these private orgs definition of breeds. Many classic working breeds (such as border collies) resisted joining kennel clubs such as the AKC for 50+ years because breeding for show and meeting appearance-based "breed standards" has a notable and measurable reduction in health. The Jack Russell Terrier is an example of a breed that STILL resists joining a major "established kennel club", for this very reason (they have their own breeding association). Other things to consider is that, for example, there is a Goldendoodle breeding association of North America. I'm just wary of the arguments that there are "official" breeds or "official" clubs. Arguments should be made about notability or not, rather than which specific organization endorses which specific types of dogs. Focus on notability. Another side note, but Guide Dogs of America uses Goldadors extensively, which is notable in of itself. I'm not providing sources, as I'm just an IP and my comment will likely be ignored anyway, but I hope people read and process this comment in any case. Cheers. I hope the discussion goes more towards notability and less about what amounts to dog politics. -IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a train wreck. I was just working on the article about a famous dog and added a link to cavapoo (which redirects to cavoodle) because that's the stated breed of an associated dog owned by another famous politician. The source for this was a journal of record and so is quite respectable. As such sources reference such breeds then we will just have to deal with it and turning their names into red links would be disruption contrary to numerous policies including WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Comment, several sources have been presented for a number from this list but no attempts have been made to improve any (I will note that a number of the quotes above read as advertorials and can be used to establish little more than the two parent breeds). Until someone takes the time to improve them, at a minimum those articles should be WP:DRAFTIFYd. Cavalryman (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

AfD is not an article improvement service and draftification is just backdoor deletion because it stops people from being able to find the articles. Our policy is to develop topics in mainspace, where everyone can find them and pitch in.
"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ..."

If Cavalryman wants to collaborate to improve an article such as Beaglier, per {{sofixit}}, there's nothing stopping him. As it is, all he seems to have done is make a drive-by nomination for deletion with no constructive edits or talkpage discussion. He didn't even make courtesy notifications on the talk pages of the editors who created these articles. Just how are they supposed to discover what has happened to their creations if they are moved elsewhere without notification?

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Andrew. It's also worth noting (as it seems to be frequently misunderstood on AfDs) that notability can be established independently from the status of an article. If the sources above show notability, then the articles should be kept regardless of their current status. And the onus is not on any particular user to improve the article in order to keep it. This is the inherent problem with these mass nominations of articles, which is why I have argued for a complete keep all, with no prejudice to any particular articles being re-nominated and assessed on their individual merit. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Comment’’’ - Yes, designer breeds exist. Yes, they are popular. Yes, they are cute. Yes, WP:NOT states: ”... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.” Famous, popular and cute is not a good reason to include, and neither is mention in a book when verification of the breed/parentage is unreliable and reliant on visual ID. Science has demonstrated that visual IDs are faulty; therefore, so-called “designer breeds” or dog types are sketchy at best. If they did breed true, they would have been recognized by a reputable breed registry. Instead, we have puppy mills and backyard breeders gouging unsuspecting buyers with potentially false and misleading information while selling them on “looks”. Inclusion of such articles is dangerously close-skirting policy because we would be accepting unverifiable crossbreeds and giving them encyclopedic recognition based on anecdotal information, not verifiable facts, historical accounts, quality record-keeping or DNA results that verify lineage. I also hesitate over merging such articles to the true breed articles because the former represents crossbreeds that lack verifiability of parentage by RS. Most are based entirely on anecdotal accounts. WP articles should provide sound, verifiable information, and I am not convinced that unverifiable crossbreeds meet that expectation, regardless of the number of online sources and/or dog books that contribute to their fame and popularity of a purported (unofficially recognized and unverifiable) designer breed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff about "true breeds" is unscientific. Per this paper, most dogs have little genetic variation, being descended from "just three original founding females". It follows that "dog breeds do not represent a biological classification; rather hobbyists are responsible". Per WP:NPOV, we have no right or reason to take sides between the various hobby communities and clubs, regardless of how they dignify themselves. I am writing this in London where the Queen is content with her dorgis and her Prime Minister has a Jack Russell cross. If such pillars of society are content with dogs that are not "true breeds", we should likewise be tolerant and accommodating. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not once does that article state that there is very little genetic variation between dog breeds; that is your interpretation of what the sociologists said. Perhaps you might pursue what evolutionary biologists have to say on the topic. That breeds can be identified by their mDNA is proven, and there are numerous businesses that do just that. It is also proven that "pure breeding" leads to deleterious genes - not a good thing for dogs. It is unclear what the term "biological classification" brings to your mind, nobody is arguing that a breed is a subspecies of C. lupus. William Harristalk 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobeth Devera

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

Not meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent, reliable sources in the article. I couldn't find any while searching online, either. Mcampany (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZLU

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to San Fernando, La Union per WP:ATD; can't find anything that looks like it could constitute significant coverage apart from this and this, both of which I can't view and would probably be very similar in content. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it might meet BCAST if there's evidence of "a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming". PK650 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article state that the station exists. One of them indicates some programming from the station. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: How exactly does that satisfy GNG or BROADCAST? J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article from an old magazine stated an old program in that station. The 2011 NTC Listing from PSA, 2019 NTC Listing from FOI and a Record Book from OFDA state that the station exists. Hence, the article is good enough WP:BROADCAST and WP:NMEDIA. I'm not gonna explain further as I'm not looking for a debate. I rest my case. _SUPER ^ASTIG 12:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you will not discuss further, but you do seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BROADCAST. That guideline says about radio stations: Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming. The station merely being stated as existing by a source is nowhere near enough to satisfy either guideline. Perhaps you are thinking of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this, in common with the myriad other stubs the same user has created for Philippines radio stations, has no evidence of notability. The fact that it WP:EXISTS is irrelevant. It does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST Hug^syrup 11:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – the keep argument is insufficient for establishing notability. However, I am a bit hesitant to vote delete if there's a chance that the book sources that ~~PK650~~J947 identified actually do contain significant coverage. I would however vote against redirecting to San Fernando, La Union, as that doesn't have any information about the subject and will likely only cause confusion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 06:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not PK650; me. Given that they are from the same publisher I don't really think that would qualify it for GNG and it does seem rather like routine coverage of every radio station in the area. Think there would be significant coverage in there but still think it wouldn't be notable overall. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J947, my apologies for misidentifying your contributions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWLU

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it might meet BCAST if there's evidence of "a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming". PK650 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article state that the station exists. A few of them indicates some programming from the station. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this, in common with the myriad other stubs the same user has created for Philippines radio stations, has no evidence of notability. The fact that it WP:EXISTS is irrelevant. It does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST Hug^syrup 11:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manemarak

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

I can't find any English language reviews or significant coverage suggesting this passes GNG or NTV, nor anything in machine-translated Afrikaans, but I can't speak it, so there could be sources I can't find, so I'm opting for an AFD over PROD. SITH (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major (by South African standards) TV show during my childhood. As I understand the AFD tag is mainly about lack of sourcing? It does seem that the article name is misspelled, it should be Mannemerak (see intro credits on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXWdtnEYS8). It does also exist on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9541114/. The misspelling seems quite common on the internet though: https://findwords.info/term/manemarak. I hardly remember making this page (sorry about the typo), but irrespective of the fact that I created the stub, it would be sad for Mannemerak to be considered non-notable. Re the misspelling, what is the best approach? Rename the article and create a redirect from the misspelled version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilenMarais (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow more time for investigation of possible misspelling and non-English sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who grew up in South Africa in the 80s, I can confirm that this was a popular TV series. The correct spelling is "Mannemarak", as can be seen in the screenshot on IMDB. --StefanVanDerWalt (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Detailed analysis of sources not refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley McLaughlin

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

I'm not seeing any independent sourcing other than unreliable sources like IMDB, Netflix, etc. This was put up for a WP:PROD which was removed more than once despite the fact there no reliable sources used as references at that time: [15] [16]. I'm not seeing anything else that indicates strong notability to meet WP:NACTOR. She was in The Librarians (2014 TV series), which has an article. But I'm not seeing another notable work she is in with a reliable source for it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, at present. [Disclosures: I have no personal interest, direct or indirect, in this individual, and so have no POV issue to declare. Otherwise, I am a regular academic editor with thousands of edits, who for personal reasons chooses not to log. Various other editors and adminstrators are aware of my work.] I oppose the deletion, at present, because the issue with the article appears to be quality of sourcing, a matter that can be remedied. (Contrary to the perspective of @David Tornheim:, clicking on the link in the AfD template message brings up several reliable published sources, including for a recent appearance in Netflix's new (and clearly notable) series, Love, Death and Robots. Hence, I think a deletion is premature. I regularly attend to articles whose sourcing is even worse than this; moreover, despite the UK being part of the coverage of en.wikipedia.org, there is no gainsaying that there is a bias in perspective here in favour of U.S.-based film enterprises over professionals from the Commonwealth, even moreso over other English-speaking film professionals further afield. (I am quite sure, for instance, that there is more written about minor American directors and producers than about some preeminent Kenyan or ASEAN ones.) Given the possibility of improving the sourcing for the stub—for that is all the article claims to be—and the fact that we naturally know less and so lean away from Scots and other non-American English-speaking professionals in our writing, I will oppose this deletion. Note, I am not an inclusionist, and would see more of the plagiarised, unsourced material—in some cases, whole articles—removed from the encyclopedia. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this, Hayley McLaughlin should simply be tagged for improvement, and reevaluated later (should this Scottish actor's work not continue to develop as recent sources seem to indicate it might). Meanwhile, I will tag the article "BLP refimprove", and add a "Further reading" section, with any published articles on the subject that I can quickly find. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:7911:7D3:DBD5:9B47 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article now. {{BLP reimprove}} was downgradedand to {{more footnotes}} after more than a half dozen reliable sources in support of several programmes were found and added to the text and to a Further reading section. All bare URL citations have been filled, and the process of extracting the listed potential sources was begun. The IMDB and other unreliable sources originally placed are all but gone from the article now (and even before, spoke more of editor practices rather than subject notability). If anything, the more than 20 appearances of the actor presented at the UK biography site, PersonBio.org and at her IMDB page are underresearched/underrepresented, so her apparent notability is clearly understated relative to the available evidence. Moreover, the Netflix appearance in the premier episode of its Love, Death and Robots drew international press overage of the programme and this actor, who played that episode's lead/protgonist. Finally, there is a current (January 2020) recurring role in an American hit series, and very ample reliable material available to source that (and all other material appearing in this UK actor's stub). Hence, in due course, one should consider withdrawing or closing the AfD. 2601:246:C700:9B0:4400:20AC:B374:431B (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this,... I actually have no problem with that. Wikipedia is not a platform for aspiring non-notable actors to advertise themselves. I see way too much corporate advertising on Wikipedia, including that from Hollywood. It needs to stop. If you want to help remove the unnecessary promotion, please do. And by the way, I am an inclusionist, but not for advertising.

If you think WP:NACTOR is too restrictive, which it may be, then I suggest you go to go that page and request a change in notability requirements for actors. I might even support that, if you have a cogent and reasonable proposed change. Certainly the requirements for actors are ridiculously high when compared with the extremely and unreasonably low bar for WP:NOLYMPICS, which causes a ridiculously high percentage of all Wikipedia articles to be about people whose only notability is being in the Olympics once. I consider it free advertising for the Olympics, a huge business. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reply is disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and misrepresents the thrust of my earlier arguments. First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis[ing] themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject. (That is certainly the case for this academic editor.) Second, it is insulting to call the recent improving work I have done on the article "advertising". WP:AGF—I removed puffery, weasel words, etc., and removed IMDB and poorer sources, replacing them with sources that comply with WP:VERIFY; as I said, I am an academic editor, and not one that writes copy for adverts, in any way or fashion. Third, no statement was made that WP:NACTOR was too restrictive, only that its application involved discretion, and that it did not necessarily apply, in as clearcut of a manner as was argued, here to the article in question, when reference to it was first made. Bottom line, this actor is doing high quality work, on highly regarded series, with highly regarded professionals (e.g., Robert Zemeckis)—see first response below, to scope_creep. People need to start working through the 20+ listed credits that are posted for this actor at the UK bio site, and see what can be supported with verifiable sources. Only then should a firm decision be made about notability. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis[ing] themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject.

Are you sure about that? I got no reply to asking an IP editor--who seems to be particularly concerned about preserving this page--whether they have a WP:COI or not: This unanswered COI question. It seems to me based on this diff, that the editor is overly eager to have a page kept before reliable sources have reported on the actor, something the editor seems very confident will happen. Why is that? That sounds like the kind of talk you get from a WP:COI editor, like the editor is trying to promote the actor and/or works the actor is in. This IP editor is new and has worked on few articles, and shows up aggressively pushing for this one article to be saved as one of his/her biggest priorities. That's pretty typical of a WP:COI editor. But please, let's hope that IP editor answers the question and explains their COI-like editing behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage is indicative of an actor at the beginning of her career. The librarians is a guest role. Some minor, Linlithgow Gazette is a micro newspaper and Daily Record are all local new. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, an actor at the beginning of their career can still be notable, and the WP guidelines you state are not clearly unsupportive of an article. First, the WP:NACTOR argument presented is based on the least of this actor's accomplishments (the The Librarians episode), not the best available (the Love, Death and Robots premier with coverage from news sources in at least four countries, and the recurring role in the Zemeckis' drama, Project Blue Book, the 2020 coverage of which is just beginning). This pick-the-earliest-and-least argument would be like evaluating Harrison Ford based on his 1970 role in Getting Straight—which no one has seen—and ignoring his next role, American Graffiti. Second, using WP:SIGCOV to take a swing at Daily Record (Scotland) is a straw man argument as well—picking the least of more than a dozen valid citations to attack. Granted, the Daily Record is not the greatest source, but it is to Glasgow what the New York Daily News is to NYC (and it is more important to that nation than the News is to the U.S.). But, more critically—why are Deadline, Variety, and io9.Gizmodo all ignored—are they not valid as entertainment sources? I'm sorry, I spent an hour, and was able to find these, and dispel the IMDB-only argument (see this diff). Until someone takes the time to review the 20 entries at the UK site that presents the full filmography, then do the work to see if there is significant press on more of the works in which this UK actor has appeared, I cannot buy these fly-by rejections based on no significant effort to investigate or improve. WP:SIGCOV was misused here, and WP:NACTOR clearly involves discretion. Actors from the UK deserve a chance at WP. 2601:246:C700:9B0:10F8:DB65:ED5E:C55A (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article is clearly notable and there are references to assert notability.--Racklever (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley: As a long-term wikipedian, I have additional respect for your opinion. Can you say which WP:RS you feel is the most relevant, and how exactly she meets the standard WP:ACTOR? I have asked the IPs (who all may be the same editor) about that too. I have not seen the case made for that yet. If so, I'm willing to change my vote, but I believe it is too late to withdraw the AfD, since one other editor voted to delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim you probably meant to ping Racklever? all ~riley did was add the deletion sorting. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Sorry for the error. I should have pinged Racklever as I have now done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been significantly updated, so in respect to WP:HEY, lets examine the references again.

Ref 1 is the Linlithgow gazette which is local coverage. It is a micro newspaper celebrating it's local celebratory.
Ref 2 is a good secondary source, if it was a leading part but it is guest role in the librarians.
Ref 3 is non-rs. It is IMDB
Ref 4 No mention of the subject
Ref 5 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 6 Mentioned in passing as cast member. Has a small paragraph about the character, not the person playing it
Ref 7 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 8 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 9 Quote with no context
Ref 10 Seems to be lead is low budget film Deadly Switch
Ref 11 non-rs. IMDB again
Ref 12 Second cast list in first episode. Single episode.
Ref 13 Assuming a single episode as other voice actors are getting
Ref 14 Confirms ref 13
Ref 15 Confirms ref 13 although cast list is out of order.
Ref 16 Profile page. Non-rs
Ref 17 Confirms ref 13
Ref 18 Ref 18 confirms 13
Ref 19 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 20 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 21 to 28 is non-rs and doesn't count towards notability. There are all IMDB.

Out of the 21 references, 10 are Non-RS, meaning they don't count, leaving 12. Of those 12, 5 don't mention the subject, which leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 detail a single episode of the excellent Robot series where she is a voice actor and not the star. The Robot series is mentioned in several continents due to the very high quality animators that are being used to create the series, not her. The remaining three references, two of them are local to Scotland, one of them has Scottish coverage and not much else. Linlithgow gazette is too local to count. It hyper-local. The last ref is for film Deadly Switch, where she is a lead, but a low-budget film that is indicative of the type of film that brand new actors make. The librarian role is a guest star. All indicative of an attempt to WP:PUFF the article out. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply. Your closing comment is borderline insulting. AGF. There has been no WP:PUFF from me. The Librarian piece is noteworthy as her first major gig (that I found), and it resulted in her receiving very positive mention, as a guest star (over the regular cast members), by two reviewers. That is notable. And the rest of your analysis is misdirected, and your time cataloging the sources significantly misspent. With regard to misspent: unfortunately, you waited with your analysis until the nice, short list of sources I provided in my opening hour of work became adulterated with with added IMDB sources. I do not think they should stay, and I will remove them, so your list will very quickly become obsolete. Had you done your analysis earlier, you would not have been able to draw as consistent of a negative conclusion as you did. With regard to misdirection, as repeatedly stated: (1) The original AfD report addressed the fact that there were no reliable sources, with the article relying only on IMDB. (2) I then put in the hour, drawing reliable sources using the News search link appearing in the AfD header, to make the point that the subject was indeed subject of several WP:VERIFY-compliant news reports, and so that the original AfD objection was misguided—there were available sources, the original posting editor simply had not looked hard enough. And disingenuous, significantly, because (3) there has never been an argument from me here, none whatsoever, that the task of sourcing is done, or that this set of sources are sufficient or best, simply that non-IMDB sources were available for this actor, and that they were WP:VERIFY-compliant and satisfactory for a stub-length article.

In response to the improvements I made to the original IMDB-only article, editors are now moving the goal posts, attacking the first-pass, clearly preliminary sources for a stub—sources that are clearly good enough for a stub. So I reiterate what I said in response to David Tornheim above. A firm decision about notability should not be made until the many listed entries in this actor's filmography—appearing at the UK bio site, and/or at IMDB—are researched. That is to say, our time is better spent improving the article and its sources, rather than arguing about matters not in dispute. After we know if the actor is notable, only then should people firmly decide. And we will know after the work is done on the credits this actor has posted. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe we should discount Scottish newspapers because they are local to Scotland, local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability talk page), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply. As I stated in response to scope_creep's vote, I agree with you, that disparaging a Scottish newspaper just because it a Scottish publication, e.g., from Glasgow, the most populous city in that country, displays a bias that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of WP:VERIFY, and of this being an encyclopedia for all English speaking countries. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 said above "local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability". Are you sure about that? I assume you are talking about this discussion. I didn't read all of it carefully. From skimming it, I am not at all convinced that because this is being discussed at length that the result of that discussion is a definitive determination along the lines you have stated. For example, I believe from reading and participating in WP:AFDs regarding notability in sports, that a person in a high school or other junior league who is doing really well, or who made some important play, and has been covered by multiple local papers is hardly notable. I'm pretty sure I have seen those kind of articles rejected more than once.

I think part of the issue of local papers is how one satisfies the requirement of "significant coverage", as in WP:GNG. If a small community of 1,000 has a magazine of that size--one that can be demonstrated to be secondary, reliable, and verifiable--and that magazine does a long story on a local band by a local "expert" musician who saw them in town and loved their work, does that really count the same toward "significant coverage" as when BillBoard magazine has coverage with the same number of words by an expert with a similar level of expertise? I find it hard to believe that the two articles are equal in establishing "significant coverage". In that sense, I do think the size of the distribution can be a factor in notability, rather than simply reliability. Was that covered in the discussion you mentioned. If not, I might throw that in. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atlantic306: I'm not discounting the papers in Scotland as sources. The Record Daily is a national Scotland daily. The Linlithgow Gazette isn't. It is so small I hadn't heard about it. It is worth noting that the subject has not been mentioned in the two scottish broadsheets, The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. Folk have to make up their own mind. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP" - Having 22 film and tv credits. This actress is in the main cast in the later years. I have added IMDB as a ref for each film and TV item item. However, they have been deleted by someone. SWP13 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iMDB is not WP:RS. See WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SWP13 I checked your Afd stats, as it clear you have no looked at it. You have completed 6, two under your own steam and you have a 0% success rate. I would rather trust the nominator. scope_creep^Talk 22:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird SoundCloud

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

Not notable enough to have an article on WP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already references to significant coverage in the article, including in-depth articles from Vice and The Daily Dot. The nominator also cites Wikipedia:Notability (events), but this isn't an event. the wub "?!" 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vice, The Daily Dot are not quality sources, especially last one. Also, to be notable, the phenomenon should be discussed in multiple WP:RS, see WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture" the wub "?!" 20:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wub, See in the list for Vice: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. We need at least two quality sources to pass WP:GNG, currently it is one. Also, I am open for a redirect to Sound Cloud, or selective merge. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HulyaiHorod

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:NMUSIC. Can't find coverage in any language. Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Praxidicae - You say you "Can't find coverage in any language" but a quick GNews search for "Гуляйгород" shows large amounts of coverage in the Ukrainian media (e.g., here). Do you mean that you reviewed this Ukrainian language coverage but, having reviewed it, you could not find any instances of significant coverage? To be honest, I do not feel confident to review UA-language coverage in articles that may include those that cannot be machine-translated. This is particularly the case when "GulayGorod" means potentially something like "Go for a walk about town" and as such there may be a large number of mentions of it. From what I can see in machine translation I am leaning very slightly towards delete - there's articles covering them but none in detail that aren't interviews - but honestly I would like to see some input from a Ukrainian-speaker first (assuming you are not one, of course, and apologies if I am incorrect in assuming that). FOARP (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many independent sources in Ukrainian Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Yakudza (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found considerable coverage in Polish, i. e. on the official website of Warsaw (the capital of Poland): http://www.kulturalna.warszawa.pl/instytucje,1,4054,HulyaiHorod.html?locale=pl_PL. The band performed on various prestigious festivals in Poland, like this one: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B9%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_(%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C)

By the way, the name derives from the name of the village "Гуляйгородок" (Hulyaihorodok) and mobile fortification "Гуляйгород": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulyay-gorod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivalder (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of governments being into the business of publishing content about individuals/groups. Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm now leaning towards keep based simply on an apparent failure of WP:BEFORE - the nom says they found no coverage, but there clearly is coverage, albeit it is not clear to what extent this is WP:SIGCOV. They haven't answered my question about this statement. At least WP:V is clearly passed. However, I cannot read it to assess whether it actually passes WP:GNG so I'm still basically on the fence. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Candy

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NCREATIVE: Besides industry press releases/promo, I found only passing mentions of this person as the director of non-notable pornographic films[17][18] and the recipient of industry awards that don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 05:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable adult film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Numbers of followers is not a notability standard and no real argument that this isn't TOOSOON recreation when things change is encouraged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mery Racauchi (Singer)

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Andrew Base (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she has only recently started a career with an EP, like yesterday it feels like, so it fails there. But, she does have more than 370K followers on Facebook, which makes her notable. There is some coverage, sufficient for a seed article per WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I think the article should be deleted for now and it may be recreated when the subject becomes more notable and when it meets WP:SINGER. Andrew Base (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andrew Base: I did come into the Afd thinking it was a waste of my breath looking at the article and was planning going forward with a delete, but 370k follower isn't insignificant and well past the guidelines. I'd wait until the Afd is complete. Its early days. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSU Tigers football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history

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

Lightly-linked, non-standard subtopic article within the WP:CFB project. Core ranking content is duplicated at List of LSU Tigers football seasons. Nearly identical discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arizona Wildcats football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history was resolved as delete (including specifically re List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons overlap). UW Dawgs (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. The one relevant inbound link can be manually redirected to the list article. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no need for this article, especially with above mentioned "List of seasons" article overlap. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content duplicated elsewhere. Historical team rankings should be included within either the team article or at a list of team seasons. Essentially fancruft of something that actually exists. Hog Farm (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ryan shell (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment there's room for discussion here about the usability of this article: the content itself is notable and worthy for inclusion in the LSU Tigers football article, but it's also a large block which makes it a candidate for breaking out this information into a different sub-article. The question is: at what point do we break out data into a separate list to supplement an article? This looks like a candidate for such a discussion. I think it's reasonable that the information itself be kept. Should it be kept in the main article; the answer is delete: should it be kept in a separate article; the answer is keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Putnam

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

Orphaned stub with almost no sources since creation. WP:BEFORE does not disclose any sources that would qualify under either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF Although searches are complicated by the existence of another George F. Putnam who is a mining executive, there is a paucity WP:SIGCOV. Even Google Scholar does not appear to retrieve anything beyond the one book noted in the article. May be retired since the University of Missouri-St. Louis does not list him as a faculty member. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He wasn't retired; he died over 30 years ago. The fact that this omission went unnoticed for so long may say something about his notability. I found an obituary and ten reviews of his one book, but I think multiple books are needed for WP:AUTHOR and that the book itself (despite its ten reviews) is too obscure for it to make sense to make an article about the book and redirect this article to it. His publications, citation record, and other accomplishments do not appear to pass WP:PROF, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book may have been notable, but he was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A university lecturer who produced one book that attracted a number of reviews is (I fear) not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Johnston

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

Non notable museum professional failing WP:BIO. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw an interview in a book called Museums and Digital Culture: New Perspectives and Research, but that's not the best kind of source. Other than that the coverage seems to be announcements of someone doing their job, or announcements of how they have been selected to do a job. Nothing particularly notable here, yet.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, director of the national museum.-gadfium 03:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been the director of the Dowse Art Museum and has just been made the chief executive of the national museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Noahe123 (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from those positions. There has to be SIGCOV in independent sources. There are hundreds of major museum directors that nobody writes about and who are not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is a radio correspondent for the national Radio New Zealand, an executive director of a national museum, and she has won awards. Notability has been shown via reliable sources. Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuthorAuthor: thank you for the work on the article, but the recently added sources are all trivial coverage:

"The Earl D. Bader Award for Exceptional Creative Writing in the Augustine and Culture Seminar was awarded to Courtney Johnston ’22 CON for her essay “At First a Rushing Wind,” written for Timothy Horner, PhD."
Arts commentator Courtney Johnston to judge Rotorua Museum Art Awards is basically an event announcement, saying she will judge something. A basic PR blurb.

Comment The ref I used was as a source for other information in the article, not that she was judging something, which, as you no doubt noticed, I did not include in the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I see that. It's still trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the source "Te Papa founding chief executive Dame Cheryll Sotheran dies after long illness" as it did not mention Courtney Johnson at all, nor did it support the claim it was used for in the article ("and she became the first woman to hold the position since its founding leader, the late Dame Cheryll Sotheran, was appointed in 1992.").
Additionally, the two awards now in the article are a "Winston Churchill Trust Scholarship" and a PHD program writing award. The first, the "Winston Churchill Shcholarship" was actually a travel grant. The trust gives out fellowships as well; their site does not list her as a fellow. These are not a big deal. The second was a school awards. Every school gives out hundreds or thousands of these a year. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've take out the writing award, as it was given to someone who is clearly a different Courtney Johnson on a different continent.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of a country's national museum should be enough, and we have in-depth coverage in major national news sources to back it up. The earlier coverage for Dowse and RNZ avoids any issues with WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being appointed as ceo of NZ's national museum shows Johnston is "is regarded as an important figure" so meets WP:CREATIVE. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE is for artists, not museum directors. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so not for people associated with the arts .... okay then WP:ANYBIO "widely recognised contribution" in the field of the arts, reflected by her appointment to one of the top jobs in NZ arts. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", then no. I believe keep !voters are confusing having a job with notability. There is nothing to say about her based on the coverage other than she had a couple of jobs. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leading the national museum should be enough and the various sources go into enough depth. Schwede 66 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without her being named chief executive of Te Papa, I would have been a bit skeptical. But now she definitely seems sufficiently notable. (Besides, I generally tend to be an 'inclusionist'.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Director of a national museum. Was the director of the Dowse Art Museum and now the chief executive of the national museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE, which contrary to the enthusiastic User:ThatMontrealIP's "is for artists, not museum directors" is in fact for "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" - in to which I'd be inclined to group museum directors. Obvs, ymmv, but at least try not to mislead by very selective omissions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued by the keep !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough to pass notability criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, possibly WP:CREATIVE - altho as pointed out above, curators and museum directors are not specifically listed, but one could interpret "creative professionals" would fit the latter. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the above. Clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Roc Records

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

Stub sourced solely to the websites of the label itself and its apparently sole recording artist. no sources added since creation. WP:BEFORE discloses only passing mentions (e.g., [19]). No significant coverage in independent sources so fails WP:GNG and no applicable SNG appears satisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a little more than I thought there'd be, [20], [21], but it's not enough. The first is a passing mention, although it shows they had more than one artist, and the second is another passing mention that isn't even independent. There's nothing to show the label had any material effect on multiple notable artists' careers, that it had any material effect on any genre or regional culture, or any impact on the history of the recording industry. There's no indication that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There's nothing to save, it is written as an advertisement that just looks embarrassingly outdated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

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

News flash: D&D features dinos! They are monsters! You can kill them and get XP! Ugh. No evidence this passes GNG. Pure PLOT+publication history. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that merge to either Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons or List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Despite the harsh criticism, there are secondary source judging that dinosaurs play a not-so-unimportant part in D&D. I have added one. So now we have a scientific book, an independent magazine and several non-affiliated internet sites. Dinosaurs were also used in third-party derivatives of D&D. Daranios (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters Know What They're Doing is another secondary source. Daranios (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is relevant here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be pages 530-533, with the Introduction, pages XIII-XIV, explaining how real-world ideas flowed into the book. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The non-primary sources are just not sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. The ones present are either from non-reliable sites (such as fansites), or are extremely passing mentions that have no discussion about them outside of basically saying "dinosaurs are a type of monster in D&D". For example, the book being used as a source, "Religions in play: games, rituals, and virtual worlds", sounds impressive, but actually looking into it shows that D&D dinosaurs are mentioned exactly one time, and in no other context aside from being included in a list of a bunch of other monsters. The number of sources stuck onto a page doesn't mean that much if none of them actually provide any kind of in-depth coverage or analysis that would allow an article to be written that could pass the WP:GNG. And quite frankly, none of the ones present, or can be found upon searches, do. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Religions in play: True enough, dinosaurs appear there only one time. As the quote shows the author does not, however, considers them any type of the myriad monsters in the game, but one of the basic ones. He uses them together with only two other groups, demons and fey, as comparison to demonstrate the importance of mythology-based monsters in the game. So in view of all sources together I stand by my opinion and curiously await extraneous judgement. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as an example is a far cry from the GNG-required in-depth analysis. Sorry, but Rorshacma is right on spot, those sources are not very helpful, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. There are not enough primary sources on the topic for it to merit its own article. DA1312 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dinosaur is a dinosaur, the way they are used in D&D does not merit its own article. GNG fail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial descriptions do not make an article suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia has no duty to cover every minute facet of D&D so retention is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, which says it only lists notable monsters, but doesn't even mention dinosaurs?! Not a good case for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, uses mostly primary sources, and even the non-primary sources are merely brief mentions that are also plot summaries. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the limited discussion here, I gave a strong look at the previous AfD, which closed as Keep. However, the sources accepted by some editors in that discussion seem very weak, so I do not take it as good reason to doubt the consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weyoun

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor Star Trek character. I can't find any in-depth analysis that's not a pure WP:PLOT summary or in-passing (I'll stress that sources presented in last AfD, not used to improve this article, did not contain any analysis beyond maybe a sentence or so, and seemed to be just plot summaries). Seems to fail WP:GNG/NFICTION. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the only means of reception is a listicle (an extremely focused on at that), the article doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SeaQuest DSV 4600

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous prod declined. Fancruft failing GNG/NFICTION, pure PLOT, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to seaQuest DSV. There is a limited amount of sourced material regarding the special effects used to render the ship that should be in the parent article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ref doesn't work (anymore ...but it seems like a blog anyway), and I am not in favor of merging essentially unsourced material and fictional tech info. A copy of the article is already at https://wikivisually.com/wiki/seaQuest_DSV_4600 . – sgeureka ^t•c 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons dragon deities

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

Yet another listing of D&D gods by race, no indication this passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION, WP:LISTN, pure WP:PLOT based on WP:PRIMARY. See also related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons gnome deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Just noting for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities was closed as merge rather than delete, which is also a reasonable outcome here. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Bahamut and Tiamat, the two most important Dragon deities in D&D, articles survived AfD. The category as a whole is important; thus a list article about well-known and lesser-notable individual subjects satisfies wp:cln and wp:listn. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the rest of the species-specific deity lists, there are no reliable sources talking about the grouping as a whole that goes beyond basic plot or passing mentions - basically only Tiamat and Bahamut are potentially notable among the group, and are the only ones that really get any kind of coverage that could argued to be from reliable, secondary sources, and they already have their own articles. So, the grouping fails WP:LISTN, and as only two of these entries are blue-linked, it does not really serve much of a purpose as a navigational tool. The only deities here that would warrant being merged into the main Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) would be Tiamat & Bahamut, but since they already have separate articles, that isn't really necessary at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these "deity" lists are pure listcruft that fail WP:LISTN completely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. To repeat myself from earlier AfDs for articles of this type: I admit I'm a little nervous about deleting these lists; I suspect there will be some secondary sources out there on the deities individually, and, together, justify the list as a whole. Absent evidence of those sources, I support a merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per Necrothesp. Daranios (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 08:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Pagnato

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:Paul is a well-respected businessman, entrepreneur, speaker, and now author. He has been asked by many news outlets to speak on the subject of transparency, which includes tv, radio, podcasts, newspapers, etc. He is deserving of a Wikipedia page. He certainly is notable as he has been a regular on CNBC, Fox Business, Wall Street Journal, etc. I can happily provide many more references that showcases his notoriety.Rpimpsner (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul is a leader in the field of transparency and a well respected contributor to many news outlets.Rpimpsner (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What coverage is there is related to his position at work as well as a number of press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:I have not provided any sources that are press releases and I have many more. I do direct you to the profile from the Wall Street Journal that highlights his accompishments. I also have links to all of the times he has been on CNBC, Fox Business and others.Rpimpsner (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: The whole point of Afd is to check the references in the article to determine if they support its existence per policy and see if there is more available sources, so it can be supported it for a keep. There is nothing here that is worth a keep. The subject is insufficiently notable. You have clearly not read any of the notability criteria nor WP:AFD nor any essay's associated with it. I suggest you do. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:I am confused on how there is not enough for a keep when a quick glance at several other Wikipeida pages that are not nominated for deletion have less sources and are of people of equal or lesser notoriety. I would easily be able to provide samples of them if need be. However, just by looking at several of the sources I have already provided including a Wall Street Journal profile that goes in depth on much of what is in the written content. I have also Googled and was able to find more profiles including one from the Financial Advisor that I included as reference as well aa well as some other references that I will include in when I have the chance. I also want to refer back to the CNBC contributions including many apperances on their shows as an expert that are very easily accesable via a search on CNBC's website. Rpimpsner (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: Read the notability criteria. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpimpsner: Take a look at WP:BIO and the opening sentence. I hope that helps. WP:BASIC is where its at, in regards applicability and quality of references. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Until his book comes out, we are counting dancing angels on the head of a pin. There has been zero significant coverage, and arguing over which sources are reliable is a waste of our time. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete significant coverage in reliable, independent, sources is simply lacking. And, while I agree with Bearian about the futility of some of this discussion, I'd just emphasise that there is a subtle but significant difference between a reliable source providing a profile of a regular contributor, and a reliable source doing a profile on someone entirely independent. A 'contributor profile' does not establish notability. Hug^syrup 10:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Özge Arslanalp

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

Non-professional 15-year old volleyball player. Doesn't pass our notability guidelines for sportspeople. Darwinek (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non notable volleyball player with no major achievement. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way better sourcing to justify an article on a 15-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the prerequisite amount of achievements might be... achieved at a later stage. Geschichte (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) JaneciaTaylor (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1854 in Australia

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

This article probably needs to be deleted or merged with 1854 because it duplicates the slope of 1854, since the article 1854 already covers events, such as births and deaths that happened in 1854. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content of an "Year in Australia" article (or any of the 16 other country-specific 1854 articles) should be sufficient for its own list separate from the global year article—of course the structure is the same, but it allows events/officeholders/births and deaths to be included with an Australian focus and scope, which would in some cases be of undue weight in a global year article. --Canley (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Material of national but not necessarily international importance can go here. See also these. If anything, some of 1854 probably should be moved into countries... Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thousands of these articles exist, let it be. No sense deleting some because the information is elsewhere on a combined list, those list not always showing everything that a nation year by year list would. Also that'd disrupt navigation for those who wanted to check year by year for a nation. Dream Focus 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Akela Kallu

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

Subject of article fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and finally WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The problem with keeping or merging is the lack of WP:RS. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Transformers

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a redundant character list. There are twenty four other character lists on the franchise. These characters are covered in their respective series. There are only two characters on the list that retain articles, so it is pointless for navigation.

The topic in general at best deserves a paragraph somewhere on the main article with links to the two articles, if they remain. As no important information is sourced, there's no need to merge anything.The only sources currently in the article relate to a character that still has an article, so they are redundant. TTN (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TTN. The topic merits a mention but not a large and massively crufty list that fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just cruft. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Part of the problem is that review sources that are WP:RS are being used as passing mentions or out of context. Its fine to use these WP:RS for reviewer comments on individual characters, but becomes WP:SYNTH and WP:OR when trying to stretch this out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. @Rorshacma and JIP: Pinging two users who participated in a rather similar recent AFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge to Transformers. The only reason I voted "delete" in the previous AFD was because the article essentially duplicated part of this article. But if this article will also be deleted, Wikipedia won't mention the existence of female Transformers anywhere. JIP | Talk 01:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an article like this on the website and on the TFwiki [22] both of these sites are not reliable sources because they are self published sources so it breaks WP:RSSELF JaneciaTaylor (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=eia.doe.gov&page=1&query=carbon+intensity+&utf8=%E2%9C%93

[1] Watts, Jonathan (2010-10-28). "Are accountants the last hope for the world's ecosystems?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-07.

[2] ttps://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=eia.doe.gov&page=1&query=carbon+intensity+&utf8=%E2%9C%93

[1]

[1]